Predestination and Hierarchy: Vallabha¯Ca¯Rya's Discourse On

J Indian Philos (2011) 39:173–227 DOI 10.1007/s10781-011-9124-1

Predestination and Hierarchy: Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s Discourse on the Distinctions Between Blessed, Rule-Bound, Worldly, and Wayward Souls (the Pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯da¯bheda)

Frederick M. Smith

Published online: 11 March 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The Pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯da¯bheda (PPM) by Vallabha¯ca¯rya (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 (Brajbha¯s:a:) commentary. 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 (jı¯vas) and their eligibility to obtain states of devotion (bhakti)ina 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 commentaries). The article concludes with reﬂections on the PPM’s doctrine of predestination, 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya Pus::tima¯rga 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, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 174 F. M. Smith

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 (adhika¯rabheda) 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 (adhika¯rabheda)’.1 In the present work, the Pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯da¯ (PPM), or, as it appears in some collections, Pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯da¯bheda, ‘‘The Differences between (the Paths of) Grace, Flow, and Limitation,’’ the author, Vallabha¯ca¯rya (1479–1531[?]), founder of the Pus::tima¯rga or Path of Grace, one of the most important schools of Kr:s:n: a devotion in northern India, unambiguously addressed the topic of eligibility (adhika¯ra) for bhakti. In this brief tract of twenty-five verses, Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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, S´rı¯ Kr:s:n: a. Attainment of pure, innocent, completely focused bhakti, Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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 (lı¯la¯). This nityalı¯la¯ 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::ti, prava¯ha, and marya¯da¯ 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::ti path. All others are eligible for the two remaining paths, prava¯ha and marya¯da¯, 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya estab- lishes a nine-fold division based on the degree of purity of the individual or jı¯va. For a jı¯va of extreme purity, bhakti becomes the instrument for realizing the grace (pus::ti) of Purus:ottama, the Supreme Lord. For the studious, religiously inclined, and law-abiding jı¯va without this intense bhakti, the maximum achievement can only be a state of limitation (marya¯da¯). This experience, which Vallabha¯ca¯rya describes as ordinary or common (sa¯dha¯ran: abha¯va), becomes the instrument for achieving liberation (mukti) as described in lesser forms of Veda¯nta, notably (and pointedly) that of the earlier advaitin Sánkara_ ¯ca¯rya. Other jı¯vas simply participate in the unexamined flow of the world (prava¯ha), 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 adhika¯ra (although even traditional authors did not always associate the concepts of adhika¯ra/adhika¯rin with the caste system; cf. e.g., Abhinavagupta, Tantra¯loka XXXV, 35)’’ (p. 561, n. 34). 2 See Smith (1998) for an explication of this term in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s thought. 3 For a clear general discussion of Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s use of these terms, see Shah (1969; pp. 137–142). 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 175

Before addressing the details of these paths, however, let us brieﬂy examine some of the other instances of hierarchizing in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s sixteen brief treatises (S: od: as´agrantha¯h: ) 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: as´agrantha¯h:

The sixteen works that constitute the S: od: aságrantha¯h: succinctly address many of the key issues in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s devotional and philosophical systems, known as the pus::tima¯rga and súddha¯dvaita, 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 (Yamuna¯s::takam, cf. Haberman 2006; 105–107). The Yamuna¯, or Yamuna¯jı¯, as both the goddess and the river are called in the Pus:tima¯rga, is one of the three pillars of the Pus::tima¯rga tradition (sam: prada¯ya), along with Vallabha¯ca¯rya and the temple deity S´rı¯na¯thjı¯ (or S´rı¯ Govardhanana¯tha) in Nathdwara, Rajasthan.4 This is followed by an evaluation of competing religious and soteriological systems (Ba¯labodha, cf. Smith 2005a); a brief account of the tenets of embodied devotional practice (Siddha¯ntamukta¯valı¯); the PPM; a recounting of Vallabha¯ca¯r- ya’s revelation in Gokula regarding initiation into Pus::tima¯rga devotional practice (Siddha¯ntarahasya); 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 (Vivekadhairya¯s´raya); a short but potent and oft-discussed treatise on the four purus:a¯rthas or goals of life from a devotional perspective (Catuh: s´lokı¯); a hymn evoking the greatness of Kr:s:n: a as the sole object of devotion (S´rı¯k:rs:n: a¯s´raya); 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 (s´rota¯rah: )(Pañcapadya¯ni); a tract on renunciation that provides the reasons why the Pus::tima¯rga has no institutionalized renunciate order but regards it as a natural outcome of intense bhakti (Sam: nya¯sanirn: 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 Seva¯phalam that has come down to us along with (and by now inseparable from) Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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¯)toKr: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. 123 176 F. M. Smith the sixteen works presented in this order in the Pus::tima¯rga 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: hala¯ljı¯’s Hindi (Brajbha¯s:a¯) translation in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. A few unremarkable and uncritical translations have appeared in the last half century. All are bare translations with little or no commentary, intended for Pus::tima¯rga 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::tima¯rgı¯s, including, for example, Mahatma Gandhi, who left for South Africa in the early 1890s. The first complete critical translation of the S: od: aságrantha¯h: into English was undertaken by James Redington as recently as the year 2000, under the tutelage of Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar of Mumbai, widely regarded as the pre-eminent Pus::tima¯rgı¯ 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 Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m’s oral commentary without giving sufficient attention to the nuances of the Sanskrit commentaries. Nor is Redington sufficiently schooled in the dynamics of Pus::tima¯rga culture or in the broad range of Pus::tima¯rga literature in Sanskrit or Brajbha¯s:a¯ to give a composite or contextualized account of the texts of the S: od: aságrantha¯h: . 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s Thought

The tendency to stratify and hierarchize occurs frequently in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s work, including in other brief treatises found in the S: od: aságrantha¯h: . It may be seen, for example, in the Ba¯labodha, in which Vallabha¯ca¯rya depicts in broad strokes various philosophical and religious systems current at the time, in the Jalabheda and Pañcapadya¯ni, 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’’ (visís::ta¯dvaita) philosopher Ra¯ma¯nuja (late eleventh to early twelfth century5) and his many followers, and the dualist (dvaita) philosopher Madhva (1238–1317). Ra¯ma¯nuja’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 (devata¯ta¯ratamya) and souls (jı¯vata¯ratamya), for the latter particularly based on what is seen as an innate capacity for spiritual insight (yogyata¯ta¯ratamya). 6 This hierarchy continues in the state of enlightenment (moks:a). It is important to

5 Ra¯ma¯nuja’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). 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 177 note here that the word ‘‘soul’’ or the more neutral term ‘‘living being’’ as translations for the Sanskrit jı¯va 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::tima¯rgı¯ commentator Purus:ottama’s definition of jı¯va, namely 7 sárı¯ravisís::tas´ cetanah: , ‘‘consciousness particularized through a body’’. Even if Vallabha¯ca¯rya resolves the distinctions in his hierarchy differently than Ra¯ma¯nuja or Madhva, particularly in assessing eligibility and predestination in terms of bhakti rather than moks:a, we might here ask the same question of Vallabha¯ca¯rya that Deepak Sarma has asked of Madhva: ‘‘It would seem that the individual jı¯va has no kartr:tva, agency, whatsoever, given Madhva¯ca¯rya’s theory of svaru¯patraividhya, predestination. Does Madhva¯ca¯rya actually propose such a strict determinism, or do jı¯vas 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s other work, including the Subodhinı¯, his commentary on major sections of the Bha¯gavata Pura¯n: a, and the Sá¯stra¯rthaprakaran: a section of the Tattva¯rthadı¯panibandha (verses 45–52 and his own commentary, called Praka¯sá). Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar maintains in his introduction to the PPM that Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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, Sýa¯m Manohar attempts to establish on other grounds that Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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 Praya¯g), which would place it later than the composition of the Nibandha. Sá¯stra¯rthaprakaran: 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, Sa¯m: khya and yoga, austerities, 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 Ba¯labodha, (Smith 2005a) verses 2 and 7, and Jalabheda, verse 21 (Smith 2005b). 123 178 F. M. Smith

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 (a¯tman) 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 9 ‘inner organ’ (antah: karan: a) (consisting of the heart, mind, intellect, and ego ). Thus, because of the experience (bha¯va)ofbrahman for such devotees, the home itself is special.10 When the thicket of knowledge systems (sá¯stra) whose purpose is delusion is shattered by the intellect (buddhi), then confi- dence in the Bha¯gavata sá¯stra arises, and it is through this that true fruit arises’’.11 If Sýa¯m 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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, Siddha¯ntamukta¯vali) 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 Sá¯stra¯rthaprakaran: a preceded the PPM (as well as the Nirodhalaks:an: a and probably most of the other texts found in the S: od: aság- rantha¯h: ). The hierarchy seen in these verses resembles what is found in the Ba¯labodha 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: s´ravan: am: kı¯rtanam: vis:n: oh: smaran: am: pa¯dasevanam | arcanam: vandanam: da¯syam: sakhyam a¯tmanivedanam k The devotional modes are: (1) hearing his names and stories (s´ravan: am: ), (2) singing Vis:n: u’s praises (kı¯rtanam: ), (3) meditating on him (smaran: am, lit. remembering), (4) serving his image (pa¯dasevanam), (5) offering worship to him (arcanam), (6) pros- trating to him (vandanam), (7) dedicating one’s actions to him (da¯syam), (8) cultivating friendship with him (sakhyam), and (9) dedicating one’s entire life and being to him (a¯tmanivedanam). 9 This is the definition of antah: karan: a in the commentaries on the Antah:karan: aprabodha, the seventh of Vallabha¯ca¯rya‘s S: od: aságrantha¯h: . 10 Thus, the Vallabha sam: prada¯ya 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 jña¯na¯d dhi kaivalyam avidya¯vinivr:ttitah: | vaira¯gyam: sa¯m: khyayogau ca tapo bhaktis´ ca kesáve k45k pañcaparveti vidyeyam: yaya¯ vidva¯n harim: visét | sattvasr:s::tipravr:tta¯na¯m: daiva¯na¯m: muktiyogyata¯ k46k tı¯rtha¯da¯v api ya¯ muktih: kada¯cit kasyacid bhavet | kr:s:n: aprasa¯dayuktasya na¯nyasyeti vinisćayah: k47k sevakam: kr:paya¯ kr:s:n: ah: kada¯cin mocayet kvacit | tanmu¯latva¯t stutis tasya ks:etrasya viniru¯pyate k48k tasma¯t sarvam: parityajya dr:d: havis´va¯sato harim | bhajeta s´ravan: a¯dibhyo yad vidya¯to vimucyate k49k brahma¯nande pravis::ta¯na¯ma¯tmanaiva sukhaprama¯ |sangha_ ¯tasya vilı¯natva¯d bhakta¯na¯m: tu visés:atah: k50k sarvendriyais tatha¯ ca¯ntah:karan: air a¯tmana¯pi hi | brahmabha¯va¯t tu bhakta¯na¯m: gr:ha eva visís:yate k51k moha¯rthasá¯strakalilam: yada¯ buddher vibhidyate | tada¯ bha¯gavate sá¯stre vis´va¯sas tena satphalam k52k 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 179 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya calls, not without irony, ta¯masa bhaktas. He labels this section of the tenth skahdha the Ta¯masaprakaran: a (BhP 10.5–35), and describes how such bhaktas, innocent, selfless, and spontaneous in their pure love, are exemplified by the gopika¯sorsva¯minı¯s (the word preferred for the milkmaids in the Pus::tima¯rga). These are the highest types of pus::ti bhaktas as he describes them here. The next level comprises ra¯jasa bhaktas, the milkmaids who experience the love-in-separation (samprayoga, viraha) that is assigned the highest value by Vallabha¯ca¯rya. This, he says, is described in the Ra¯jasaprakaran: a (BhP 10.36–63) of the tenth skandha. The third category of exalted devotees, sa¯ttvikı¯ bhaktas, are, says Vallabha¯ca¯rya, described in the third section of the tenth skandha, which he calls the Sa¯ttvika- prakaran: a (BhP 10.64–84). These devotees are also pure of heart, but have a rem- nant of pride through clinging to sá¯straic or other derivative knowledge (cf. Smith 1998).12

The Text of the PPM

1 The text of the PPM as presented here has 252 verses. It has been the subject of ﬁve commentaries, all by descendants of Vallabha¯ca¯rya. The Pus::tima¯rga is rightly called the Vallabha samprada¯ya not only because the founder was Vallabha¯ca¯rya but because the samprada¯ya has been controlled for the ﬁve centuries since its founding exclusively by the ‘‘Vallabh kul,’’ as it is commonly called within the Pus::tima¯rga tradition, the extended family of Vallabha¯ca¯rya, particularly his male descendants. At present about two hundred such descendants are alive and active in lineage (sa¯mprada¯yika) matters. All of these are descended from the seven sons of Val- labha¯ca¯rya’s second son Vit::thalana¯thajı¯ (1516–1586), who is better known within the tradition as Prabhucaran: a (‘‘he who exists at the feet of the Lord’’) or S´rı¯ Gusaim: jı¯ (‘‘the illustrious Gosva¯mı¯’’). Anyone who elects to become initiated into the seva¯ of Kr:s:n: a according to the Pus::tima¯rga 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 Pı¯ta¯mbara, 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s Jalabheda (Smith 2005b); and importantly La¯lu¯ Bhat::ta’s Pra- meyaratna¯rn: ava on marya¯da¯bhakti and pus::tibhakti. This is an introductory text on Pus::tima¯rga doctrine that has been widely used since it was composed in the late seventeenth century. 123 180 F. M. Smith

13 sixth generation descendant of the founder (Shastri 1966: 28). Purus:ottama is generally acknowledged as the greatest of the commentators on the work of Val- labha¯ca¯rya; indeed, the presence of a commentary by Purus:ottama is considered within the samprada¯ya to be the decisive indicator of the authenticity of a work allegedly written by Vallabha¯ca¯rya. An earlier commentator is Gokulana¯tha (b. 1551), the fourth of the seven son of Vit::thalana¯thajı¯ (Shastri 1966: 19), who is better known within the samprada¯ya as the author of much of the Brajbha¯s:a¯ va¯rta¯ or quasi-historical narrative literature, including the stories of the 84 disciples of Vallabha¯ca¯rya (Caura¯sı¯ Vais:n: avan kı¯ Va¯rta¯) and the 252 (84 3) disciples of 14 Vit::thalana¯thajı¯(Do Sau Ba¯van kı¯ Va¯rta¯). A third commentator is Kalya¯nara¯ya (b. 1568), the son of Govindara¯ya, the second son of Vit::thalana¯thajı¯ (Shastri 1966: 15 19), and the fourth is Raghuna¯tha, the ﬁfth son of Vit::thalana¯thajı¯. 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 commentaries, there is an undated Brajbha¯s:a¯ commentary (and translation) written between 1775 and 1825 by Nr:sim: hala¯ljı¯, who was born into the lineage of Vit::thalana¯thajı¯’s oldest son, Giridhara.16 The text presented here has been reproduced by Gosva¯mı¯S´ya¯m Manohar (1979), who is himself a lineage holder in the Vallabh kul, a fourteenth generation descendant of Vallabha¯ca¯rya, 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 samprada¯ya that the text of the PPM is incomplete (Shastri 1966; 132f.). Three of the commentators have stated this: Gokulana¯tha states that it is well known that the text is incomplete, and Raghuna¯tha 17 acknowledges this without further explanation. Because both are sons of Vit::thalana¯thajı¯, 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 prava¯ha path and the nature and ritual practices of the marya¯da¯ path.18 Although the text appears to end rather abruptly,

13 In his commentary on the PPM, Purus:ottama uses the name Pı¯ta¯mbara. There are no other extant commentaries by Pı¯ta¯mbara, 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 s´rı¯vallabhanandana-caran: en: vekata¯nas´rı¯yadupati- tanayapı¯ta¯mbaraviracitam: pus::tipra¯vahamarya¯da¯vivaran: am: sama¯ptam| 14 This is explicated by T: an: d: an (1961). 15 The Vallabha samprada¯ya is divided into seven houses (pı¯:tha-s), with the descendants of the seven sons of Vit::thalana¯thajı¯ 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::thas, see Bennett (1993: 37ff., esp. p. 52). 17 Gokulana¯tha says in his introduction to the text: yady apy atra granthopasam: ha¯radarsána¯bha¯va¯d agre ’pi grantho ’stı¯ti jña¯yate tatha¯py agrimagranthasya¯prasiddhatva¯dya¯vat prasiddha eva vya¯khya¯ta iti na¯nupapattih: ka¯cit. Raghuna¯tha says simply: ita u¯rdhvam: granthatr:tih:. 18 etad agre prava¯hama¯rgı¯yaprayojanasa¯dhana¯ngphala_ ¯ni marya¯da¯margı¯yaprayojanasvaru¯pa¯ngakriya_ ¯h: sa¯dhanam: phalam: ca ya¯vat a¯jña¯yate ta¯va¯n grantho ’peks:ita iti jñeyam. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 181 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 1 texts of the S: od: aságrahtha¯h: ; in its 252 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 jı¯vas 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:ottamapra¯pti), 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-Gı¯ta¯ and the Bha¯gavata-Pura¯n: a, to justify and explain three different types of individuals (jı¯va) and their respective eligibility (adhika¯ra) for divine grace (anugraha). These are called (1) pus::ti, those who are ‘‘chosen’’ by the Lord because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to the form of Kr:s:n: a; (2) prava¯ha, those whose interests are purely of this world; and (3) marya¯da¯, aspiring well-intentioned seekers, including advocates of Vedic ritual, who have not attained the level of pus::ti. Additional categories of those with no adhika¯ra at all are briefly discussed at the end, including heretics (pa¯s: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 prava¯ha or marya¯da¯ 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: aságrantha) up to the Vivaran: a on the Seva¯phalam, we will suggest the (endless) combinations of individual strategies, states of existence, and paths (tadupa¯yabhu¯tama¯rgatatsa¯nkarye_ ), and having cleared our minds and hearts of these many doubts, S´rı¯mad A¯ ca¯rya will arrive at three paths,

19 1 Five others of the sixteen are 20 verses or more: Ba¯labodha (192), Siddha¯ntamukta¯vali (21), Jalabheda (21), Sam: nya¯sanirn: aya (22), Nirodhalaks:an: a (20). 20 iha hi cidru¯patvena bhagavadam: s´atvena ca tulyes:ujı¯ves:u kes:a¯ñcit purus:ottamapra¯ptih: kes:a¯ñcid aks:arasya kes:a¯ñcit svarga¯deh: kes:a¯ñcid andhantamasah: sa¯ s´ru¯yata iti kutah: phalabhedah: kuto va¯ svabha¯vabhedah: katham: va¯ kes:a¯ñcit svabha¯vaviruddhe dehakriya itares:a¯m: ca tadanuru¯pe... 123 182 F. M. Smith to be explained in this work’’.21 The main point is that according to Vallabha¯ca¯rya predestination is a fact that can be borne out through textual support and reasonable argument. The logic of Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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::ti souls, those who are referred to in the samprada¯ya as bhagavadı¯ya, those belonging to the Lord, or tadı¯ya, those belonging to him, who are destined to take brahma- 22 sambandha initiation into Pus::tima¯rga seva¯, to realize him, to become part of his divine lı¯la¯, 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 sá¯straic dexterity, an array of quotations from the BhP, the Upanis:ads, and elsewhere, as prama¯n: a. He understands the BhP as Vedic; thus, presenting it as a valid source for Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s doctrines is, to him, a form of sábdaprama¯n: 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 demonstrating the validity of the three paths in question, pus::ti, prava¯ha, and marya¯da¯. Verses 1–2 pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯da¯ visés:en: apr:thak pr:thak | jı¯vadehakriya¯bhedaih: prava¯hen: a phalena ca k1k vaks:ya¯mi sarvasandeha¯ na bhavis:yanti yacchruteh: | bhaktima¯rgasya kathana¯t pus::tir astı¯ti nisćayah: k2k (The three kinds of person, called) pus::ti, prava¯ha, and marya¯da¯, are distin- guished according to: (1) their respective characteristics (visés:en: a); (2) their different forms of embodied consciousness (jı¯va), their bodies and their actions; (3) the fact that they are a natural and continuous aspect of creation

21 ... ity a¯dipraka¯ren: a seva¯phalavivaran: a¯digranthas´ravan: a¯d anyatas´ ca sandiha¯na¯na¯m: sande- hava¯hana¯ya tadupa¯yabhu¯tama¯rgatatsa¯nkarye_ niru¯payaitum: bahu¯na¯m: sandeha¯na¯m: bhedajña¯na¯d eva nivr:ttim: hr:di kr:tva¯ ma¯rgatrayabhedaniru¯pan: am: s´rı¯mada¯ca¯rya¯h: pratijña¯nate pus::t¯ıty a¯di. 22 See, on bhagavadı¯ya, see Jalabheda 14 and Purus:ottama’s introduction to the Bhaktivardhinı¯, and on the state of tadı¯yata¯ my introduction to the Jalabheda (Smith 2005b). 23 It might be emphasized again here that one of the principal concerns of the S: od: aságrantha¯h: is eligibility (adhika¯ra) for proximity to the Lord. This concern is also expressed in the va¯rta¯ literature. For example, the S´rı¯na¯thjı¯pra¯kat:yava¯rta¯ (Smith 2009), a Brajbha¯s:a¯ text attributed to Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s grandson Gokulana¯tha (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 Gokulna¯thjı¯’s mouth, ‘‘During the times of our father S´rı¯ Gusa¯ı¯njı¯, the pure Pus:tima¯rga lived. At that time S´rı¯na¯thjı¯ spoke and played with all the bhaktas. Now the following of the Pus::tima¯rga is a mixed group. S´rı¯na¯thjı¯ accepts all of their seva¯ but only speaks with those who are filled with grace.’’ 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 183

(prava¯ha); 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::ti exists. The commentators agree that because it has been described from the Vedas to the Bha¯gavata Pura¯n: a, both pus::ti (grace) and the Pus::tima¯rga (the Path of Grace), are established. Purus:ottama interprets visés:en: a in 1b as certain characteristics (dharmas) that separate one kind of jı¯va from another. On prava¯hena, 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- vijña¯na). 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-Gı¯ta¯, 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¯, sva¯minı¯) on sporting with Kr:s:n: a; (2) BhP 10.3.45, which describes the constant love and stream of attention of Nanda and Yasóda¯onKr:s:n: a; (3) BhP 10.60.54, in which Kr:s:n: a praises Yasóda¯’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 (sa¯lokya), enjoying the Lord along with his creative powers (sa¯rs::ti), residing in Kr:s:n: a’s presence (sa¯mı¯pya), obtaining a form similar to Kr:s:n: a’s (sa¯rupya), and becoming absorbed into his being (sa¯yujya). 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 (bhaktibı¯ja) within the disciple. Without such seeds of grace, not even the Lord can speak about the path of devotion (anyatha¯ bhagava¯n evam: bhaktima¯rgam: na vadet). The thrust of 2c is that in bhaktima¯rga practice (sa¯dhana) is not necessary, but grace (kr:pa¯) alone is the determining factor. Thus, bhakti is not prescribed (avihita) for pus::ti 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 sa¯dhana here is a reference to the practices of the ma¯ya¯va¯dins, the followers of Sánkara_ ¯ca¯rya, which he and others in the Pus::rima¯rga 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::tima¯rga,

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 tadiha¯mutropa¯dhinair a¯sýenaiva¯mus:min manah: kalpanam... 123 184 F. M. Smith however, is called seva¯, divine service to the Lord (in the S: od: aságrantha¯h: , this is most fully explicated in the Siddha¯ntamukta¯vali), which Purus:ottama and all the other authorities in the sam: prada¯ya distinguish from sa¯dhana. Purus:ottama presents an argument for the non-difference, or, perhaps more accurately, the semantic convergences, between pus::ti, kr:pa¯, and anugraha, as well as their dissimilarity to other emotions (ra¯ga) such as anger, compassion, etc. Thus, he defines pus::ti as the nourishment that is his (the Lord’s) grace (pus::tir asti pos: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 jña¯nayoga and karmayoga. This chapter of the BhP (11.20) discusses the three yogas: jña¯na, karma, and bhakti, stating that jña¯nayoga and karmayoga are inef- fective in the kaliyuga, but bhakti is patently accessible. These three yogas are clearly adopted from the Bhagavad-Gı¯ta¯. 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 jña¯nayoga, 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 adhika¯ra for either jña¯nayoga or karmayoga, but who has developed love for the Lord, is selected for the path (ma¯rga) or practice (yoga)ofbhakti 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, anugraha, 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 (dharma¯ntaram). Although it is causeless, it is not unseen (adr:s::ta); 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::thalnatha 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 Súka tells Parı¯ks: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 s´ruti has the same meaning and significance as bhakti in

25 In order to complete both the thought and the basis for using this as sábdaprama¯n: a, BhP 11.20.6-8 should be cited in full: yoga¯s trayo maya¯ prokta¯ nr:n: a¯m: s´reyovidhitsaya¯ | jña¯nam: karma ca bhaktis´ ca nopa¯yo ’nyo ’sti kutracit k6k nirvin: n: a¯na¯m: jña¯nayogo nya¯sina¯m iha karmasu | tes:v anirvin: n: acitta¯na¯m: karmayogas tu ka¯mina¯m k7k yadr:cchaya¯ matkatha¯dau ja¯tas´raddhas tu yah: puma¯n | na nirvin: n: ona¯tisakto bhaktiyogo ’sya siddhidah: k8k 26 BhP 5.16.18ab: ra¯jan patir gurur alam: yadu¯na¯m: daivam: priyah: kulapatih: kva ca kinkaro_ vah: | 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 185 later texts. He cites the following s´ruti passage as evidence: yam evais:avr:n: ute tena labhyas tasyais:aa¯tma¯ vivr:n: ute tanu¯m: sva¯m (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 27 the self discloses its own true form’’. In bhakti texts, Purus:ottama says, varan: a means 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 pu¯rvapaks: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::tima¯rga, however, the siddha¯nta, is that the person who has been espoused receives as fruit the whole svaru¯pa 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 ma¯rgenaiva pramı¯yate). 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: hala¯ljı¯ 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: hala¯ljı¯ 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 jı¯vas within them, are equal as particles of the Lord’s essence (bhagavadamsá). All jı¯vas 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), Bhagava¯n 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 Ba¯labodha, that no one gives what is dearest to them; thus, Vis:n: u grants liberation (moks:a) while Síva bestows enjoyment (bhoga), 29 quite against the natural and expected order of things. 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 Ba¯labodha 13c–14: bhogamoks:aphale da¯tum: sáktau dva¯v api yady api k13k bhogah: sívena moks:as tu vis:n: uneti vinisćayah: | loke ’pi yat prabhur bhunkte_ tan na yacchati karhicit k14k ‘‘Although both (Vis:n: u and Síva) definitely have the capacity to bestow the fruits of enjoyment (bhoga) and liberation (moks:a), it is clearly understood that Síva 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). 123 186 F. M. Smith able to attain exalted divine love (sudr:dhasneha). Then, momentarily forgetting this greatness (ma¯ha¯tmya), 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::ti. Like Devakı¯ forgetting the Lord, one who performs a regressive or unproductive action (pa¯pakarma) must atone for it by performing an act of expiation (pra¯yasćitta). 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: hala¯ljı¯, is relatively easy; such anugraha is induced, at least in part, by mantras and prayers. At the core of this anugraha is pus::ti. 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::ti 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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 avata¯ra¯vastha¯, avata¯raka¯la,oravata¯r- adasá¯, which is to say during the time in which the avata¯ra 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::ti 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 avata¯raka¯la, met their end in what Purus:ottama calls the a¯su- ravya¯mohalı¯la¯, the divine play of Kr:s:n: a during which the great demons were stu- pefied. This direct participation in the Lord’s lı¯la¯s is called by Vallabha¯ca¯rya prameya, because they are to be realized by bhaktas in historical time. This category would consist, for example, of the dance described in the ra¯sapañca¯dhya¯ya, 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 (vrajasva¯minı¯s).30 As a result of gaining knowledge of the greatness of Kr:s:n: a through hearing stories of his prama¯n: alı¯la¯s, his divine play in which he kills demons, graphically demonstrating his greatness to the devotee, the bhakta’s devotional seed (bı¯ja) becomes planted. The devotee is then prepared to offer tanuvittaja¯seva¯, in which one offers everything from one’s mind, speech, and body, an all-consuming state equated with the lı¯la¯s of the avata¯raka¯la.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 Ba¯labodha, and again emphasized here, striving is acceptable for followers of the marya¯da¯ path, but not for those

30 For a full explication of this important section of the BhP, see Redington (2001). 31 Siddha¯ntamukta¯valı¯, verse 2: cetas tatpravan:am: seva¯ tatsiddhyai tanuvittaja¯ | tatah: sam: sa¯ra- 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: sa¯ra (and) the awakening of (the knowledge) of brahman result from this.’’ 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 187 chosen by the Lord for the pus::t:i path. This is the conundrum, or irony, or even mild contradiction. Verse 3 dvau bhu¯tasarga¯v ity ukteh: prava¯ho ’pi vyavasthitah: | vedasya vidyama¯natva¯n marya¯da¯pi vyavastitah: k3k Because of the statement beginning dvau bhu¯tasargau (Bhagavad-Gı¯ta¯ 16.6), the prava¯ha path has indeed been established. Because of the very existence of the Veda, the marya¯da¯ path is established. Bhagavad-Gı¯ta¯ 16.6 states: dvau bhu¯tasargau loke ’smin daiva a¯sura eva ca | daivı¯ vistarasáh: prokta a¯suram pa¯rtha me s´:rn: u k ‘‘There are two kinds of created beings in this world, divine (daiva) and demonic (a¯sura). The divine has been explained at length. Regarding the demonic, listen to me, Pa¯rtha.’’ 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 prava¯ha in 1d, reiterated here, as a natural and continuous aspect of the creation. He explains the marya¯da¯ path, the path of limitation, with the gloss niyama¯natikramah: , 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 Pu¯rvamı¯ma¯m: sa¯: vidhi, mantra, na¯madheya, nis:edha, and arthava¯da. Similarly, he states, the three fundamental divisions of pus::ti, prava¯ha, and marya¯da¯ contain 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: hala¯ljı¯ states that having spoken about the present-day position of pus::ti,he now addresses the divisions called prava¯ha and marya¯da¯. These two, he states, following Purus:ottama, have been in existence since the time of creation. He says to imagine prava¯ha 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 marya¯da¯ beings are that they perform prescribed ritual actions and require fixed doctrines. The Veda, he says, which is eternal, has two parts or ka¯n: d: as, the earlier (pu¯rva) and the later (uttara), meaning, respectively, the karmaka¯n: d: a, the section devoted to ritual practice, and the jña¯naka¯n: d: a, the section devoted to abstract knowledge. Because the Veda is eternal, these two parts are also eternal. When Bhagava¯n exercises anugraha, the bhaktima¯rga is pus::tima¯rgı¯. All the paths that foster the desire for worldly or heavenly fruit are prava¯hı¯. All those that do not transgress the laws of the Vedas are marya¯da¯. An unlimited number of paths, he says, fall within these three divisions. Verses 4–5 kasćid eva hi bhakto hi yo madbhakta itı¯ran: a¯t| na sarvo ’tah: prava¯ha¯d dhi bhinno veda¯c ca bhedatah: k4k yada¯ yasyeti vacana¯nna¯ham: vedair itı¯ran: a¯t| sarvatrotkars:akathana¯t pus::tir astı¯ti nisćayah: k5k

123 188 F. M. Smith

Only certain people are bhaktas, not everyone. (We know this) because of the statement (beginning) yo madbhakta (Bhagavad-Gı¯ta¯ 12.16). Therefore (the path of bhakti) must be different from that of prava¯ha and also from that of the Veda. (It is similarly proven) from the statement (beginning) yada¯ yasya (Bha¯gavata Pura¯n: a 4.29.46), as well as that (beginning) na¯ham vedair (Bhagavad-Gı¯ta¯ 11.53–54). Because its superiority is described everywhere, it is definitely established that pus::ti (as a category of jı¯va) 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 Raghuna¯tha as well. Purus:ottama admits that this opposes the received text, in spite of Raghuna¯tha’s support. Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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: a¯ti bhagava¯na¯tmabha¯vitah: | sa jaha¯ti matim: loke vede ca parinis::thita¯m 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): na¯ham vedair na tapasa¯ na da¯nena na cejyaya¯ |sákya evam: vidho dras::tum: dr:s::tava¯n asi ma¯m: yatha¯ k bhaktya¯ tv ananyaya¯ sá¯kya aham evam: vidho ’rjuna | jña¯tum: dras::tum: ca tattvena praves::tum: 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya regards as marya¯da¯, hence lower than single-minded devotion to Kr:s:n: a. The word praves::tum (< praRvis´) in BhG 11.54d indicates that one enters into the Lord through devotion. It may be argued that this sentiment from the Gı¯ta¯ is opposite to that expressed by Vallabha¯ca¯rya nearly a millennium and a half after the composition of the Gı¯ta¯. This is consistent with what I have discovered about the general deployment of the words pravesá and a¯vesá in contexts in which deity or spirit possession are discussed.32 It appears that in later texts, including those of Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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 Gı¯ta¯, one-pointed bhakti enables one to enter into the Lord, whereas according to Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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). 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 189 predestination; it is much closer to pure theism than what is expressed in the Gı¯ta¯, 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 bhakti is confirmed by the force of sábdaprama¯n: 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 karmaka¯n: d: a and jña¯naka¯n: 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::ti state. He notes that the very existence of pus::ti, which we understand as a certain possibility because of the phrase pus::tir asti (‘‘pus::ti exists,’’ verse 2), indicates that the pus::ti state is a superior class of jı¯vas. Furthermore, abiding in the pus::ti state erases the effects of time (ka¯la), personal actions (karma) and the vagaries of one’s personality (svabha¯va). 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 (sa¯dhaka). The pus::ti path, he says, is different from the Veda because it is not prescribed (avihita); bhakti cannot be achieved through the instrumentality of any sa¯dhana, 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 (s´ravan: a), through contemplating on these (manana), and through singing the Lord’s praises (kı¯rtana)?Orisbhakti simply worshipping with love? Not unexpectedly, it is the latter. He reinforces this with several citations from s´ruti (at least as he deploys it). He first cites the Gopa¯lata¯panı¯ya Up. (1.5), a late Vais:n: ava Upanis:ad, which states: yo dhya¯yati rasati bhajati so ’mr:to bhavati, ‘‘One who meditates on him [Kr:s:n: a], praises him, 33 and worships him,’’ becomes immortal. He cites the refrain from Br:hada¯ran: yaka Up. 2.4.5 and 4.5.6, a¯tmanas tu ka¯ma¯ya sarvam priyam bhavati, ‘‘it is out of love for 34 the self that one holds everything dear,’’ which to Purus:ottama demonstrates the lesson of selfless love (nirupadhiprı¯ti). The meaning of the s´ruti is to love the deity with the knowledge of his greatness (ma¯ha¯tmyajña¯na), one of a number of statements 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: a¯tı¯ti pus::tih: .‘‘Pus::ti 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 dha¯rayati in place of dhya¯yati. 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: uva¯mı¯ regarded the Gopa¯lata¯panı¯ya Up. as authoritative. 34 Roebuck (2000; pp. 40–41, 91) appears to have grasped this better than Olivelle (1998; pp. 67–69, 127–129). 123 190 F. M. Smith towards censure and praise. This bhakta is, in short, free from attachment in this 35 world, and is fully devoted to Kr:s:n: a. It is only through such bhakti, says Purus:ottama, that knowledge of the Lord, fruit of that knowledge, and immersion (sa¯yujya) 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 marya¯da¯, 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 a¯tmasamarpan: a, complete dedication and surrender of one’s thoughts, intentions, and actions to the Lord can offer even a possibility of gaining this. The paradigmatic individuals for this are the milkmaids (gopı¯s) of Vraja. Anticipating the next verse of the PPM, Nr:sim: hala¯ljı¯ 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 prava¯ha 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::tima¯rg). Because it is the nature of a deity to bestow grace, then are all paths pus::ti paths? If this were the case, he argues, the prava¯ha and marya¯da¯ paths would not be different from the pus::ti path. This question arises, he says, because the authoritative sources including the Vedas, Smr:tis, and Pura¯n: as, describe followers of all three paths without actively distinguishing them. Because the Gı¯ta¯ mentions only two paths, daiva and a¯sura, then the daiva path must include both pus::ti and marya¯da¯ jı¯vas while the a¯sura path must include prava¯hı¯ jı¯vas. This problem of the ancient texts not squaring with the doctrine found in the PPM, says Nr:sim: hala¯ljı¯, is resolved in these verses. A person who has mastered contentment necessarily has his or her mind under control. Nr:sim: hala¯ljı¯ 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 bhaktas who 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::ti path. One who knows Kr:s:n: a by all different modes of experience (bha¯va) is on the pus::ti 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::ti is bestowed. Pus::ti, then is Bhagava¯n’s manifestation of grace (anugraha ru¯p).

35 yasma¯nnodvijate loko loka¯nnodvijate ca yah: | hars:a¯mars:abhayodvegair mukto yah: sa ce me priyah: k15 k anapeks:ah: súcir daks:a uda¯sı¯no gatavyathah: | sarva¯rambhaparitya¯gı¯ yo madbhaktah: sa me priyah: k16 k yo na hr:s:yati na dves::tinasócati na ka¯nks_ :yati | súbha¯súbhaparitya¯gı¯ bhaktima¯n yah: sa me priyah: k17k samah: sátrau ca mitre ca tatha¯ ma¯na¯vama¯nayoh: |s´¯ıtos:n: asukhaduh: khes:u samah: sanga_ vivarjitah: k18k tulyaninda¯stutir maunı¯ santus::to yenakenacit | aniketah: sthiramatir bhaktima¯n me priyo narah: k 19k ye tu dharmya¯mr:tam: idam: yathoktam paryupa¯sate | s´raddadha¯na¯ matparama¯ bhakta¯s te ’tı¯va me priya¯h: k20k 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 191

Verse 6 ma¯rgaikatve ’pi ced antyau tanu¯ bhaktya¯gamau matau | na tadyuktam: su¯trato hi bhinno yuktya¯ hi vaidikah: k6k If it is also posited that all paths are one, then the latter two paths (prava¯ha and marya¯da¯) must be accepted as negligible expressions of bhakti.Thatisnot correct. Because of (statements from) the su¯tra 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 marya¯da¯ path must be distanced from bhakti altogether. In his introduction to this verse, Purus:ottama states that demonic individuals (a¯surı¯ jı¯vas) 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:a¯ya nibandha¯ya¯surı¯ mata¯). Purus:ottama’s formal objector (pu¯rvapaks:in) makes two highly contentious points: (1) that prava¯ha jı¯vas may become the recipients of bhakti, and (2) that all sa¯dhanas explained in sá¯stras contribute to the development of bhakti.Thusprava¯ha and marya¯da¯ practices are adjuncts or anga_ stobhakti, 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 (nyu¯naphalasa¯dhanatva¯lpau); it does not simply mean ‘‘body.’’ If it is suggested that tanu¯ means angabhu_ ¯tau, 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 Pu¯rvamı¯ma¯m: sa¯su¯tras (PMS) and the Brahmasu¯tras (BS) consider them to be exclusive. This, he says, is shown in PMS 3.1.2, ‘‘an auxiliary serves the purposes of another’’ (sés:ah: para¯rthatva¯t), and 3.1.5, ‘‘a performed action [is auxiliary] because it serves the purpose of another’’ (karma para¯rthatva¯t). The ‘‘other’’ here is bhakti, the principal or sés:in, while a marya¯da¯ 36 practice, the karma of 3.1.5, would be the sés:a or subordinate of 3.1.2. The Pu¯rvamı¯ma¯m: sa¯ thus makes clear that Veda cannot be the an_ga of bhakti. The marya¯da¯ path cannot, then, stand in a relationship of subordinate to principal (anga_ ¯ngibha_ ¯va) 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 (sa¯ma¯nya) [of description] and its experience, as is found in the upasad sacrifices’’ (aks:aradhiya¯m: tv avarodhah: sa¯ma¯nyatadbha¯va¯bhya¯m 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 Pu¯rvamı¯ma¯m: 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. Pu¯rvamı¯ma¯m: sa¯, a topic which has become almost entirely abandoned in contemporary sá¯straic 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 anga_ ¯nibha_ ¯va, can be decontextualized from the PMS and applied with elegance and authority elsewhere. 123 192 F. M. Smith the Vedic soma sacrifice. In the upasad, mantras are employed from the Sa¯maveda (cf. Pañcavim: sá Bra¯hman: 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 adhvaryu rather than the udga¯tr:, the chief officiant of the Sa¯maveda. 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 su¯tra 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, Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s designation for brahman, the abstract absolute of the Upanis:ads and, pointedly, the Advaita Veda¯nta of Sánkara,_ which Vallabha¯ca¯rya and the Pus::tima¯rga tradition regularly disparages as ma¯ya¯va¯da, the ‘‘doctrine of illusion.’’ Consequently, the pus::ti and pra¯vaha streams would constitute the path of the Purus:ottama, the Supreme Lord, even if only those who are in the pus::ti stream will eventually achieve realization within it, while the adherents of the ma¯ya¯va¯da are representatives of the marya¯da¯ path who, for all their virtue, are ineligible for the full pus::ti fruit. Yet all of them are described in the Vedas, Smr:tis, and Pura¯n: as. Purus:ottama notes that those on the pus::ti path, and even the prava¯ha path, achieve their results through the qualified actions of the Lord (bhagavaddharma), while those on the marya¯da¯ path achieve their results through knowledge (jña¯na) alone. It is noteworthy that Purus:ottama here accords a measure of divine guidance to prava¯hins, who are otherwise thoroughly 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 pu¯rvapaks:in suggests that bhakti loses its function once jña¯na arises. This presumes a conflict between them so great that the onset of jña¯na upends bhakti, a presumption that is seemingly negated in the lives of paradigmatic pus::ti devotees such as Vallabha¯ca¯rya and Vit::thalana¯tha (and many of their devotees whose stories are found in the va¯rta¯ literature). In BS 3.3.33, aks:arabrahman is assumed as a referent, while tadbha¯va 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 sa¯ma¯nya in the word BS 3.3.33 indicates that bhagavaddharma is synonymous with aks:arabrahman and that tadbha¯va indicates brahmabha¯va. 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 sá¯kha¯ that (at first glance, at any rate) is wrong for the role is selected for the recitation, suggesting that the Vedic ritual, the 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 193 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 Aja¯mila (cf. BhP 6.1–2), who are apparently unde- serving of the highest place in the Lord’s lı¯la¯, may be chosen for reasons known only 37 to the Lord himself. Purus:ottama concludes that knowledge derived from the marya¯da¯ 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 (a¯suri) jı¯vas by the Lord at the beginning of creation is the required auxiliary to the observed fact of bondage in the samsa¯ra. This, again, reiterates the point that the pra¯va¯ha and marya¯da¯ paths function in the service of bhakti. In the same way that it is often stated axiomatically that brahmans cannot exist without sú¯dras, the pus::ti path cannot exist without the marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha paths. In this way, the marya¯da¯ and the prava¯ha paths can be discussed as angabhu_ ¯tas or auxiliaries of bhakti. Nr:sim: hala¯ljı¯ 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 Gı¯ta¯ the prava¯ha path is condemned and asks whether prava¯ha jı¯vas can have bhakti. More generally, he asks, are not all paths part of the bhaktima¯rga? This doubt, he says, is removed by Vallabha¯ca¯rya in this verse. If one argues for a uniformity of paths, that all sá¯stras recommend bhakti. But statements in other sá¯stras never say that bhakti is an anga_ or limb of marya¯da¯ practices such as the soma sacrifice (jyotis::toma). Therefore, the marya¯da¯ path is distinct from the bhakti path. He states that the creation of the divine realm (devasarg ru¯p) is the cause or facilitator of moks:a, while the creation of the demonic realm (asurasarg ru¯p) is what generates the prava¯ha path. Even if they are endowed with a certain amount of bhakti, still these jı¯vas are destined for bondage. If pus::ti were part of the prava¯ha ma¯rg, he says, then Kr:s:n: a would not distinguish in the twelfth chapter of the Gı¯ta¯ between those created with a divine destiny (daivi sampatti) and those destined for a demonic existence (asur sampatti). In other words, the Gı¯ta¯ may be interpreted to say that prava¯ha jı¯vas are condemned and marya¯da¯ jı¯vas cannot obtain the quality of bhakti that pus::ti jı¯vas receive even if they are all products of the Supreme Lord’s divine creation. Verses 7–8b jı¯vadehakr:tı¯na¯m: ca bhinnatvam: nityata¯ s´ruteh: | yatha¯ tadvat pus::tima¯rge dvayor api nis:edhatah: k7k prama¯n: abheda¯d bhinno hi pus::tima¯rgo niru¯pitah: | According to s´ruti, (one must accept) the eternality of (pus::ti) souls (jı¯va), bodies, and actions as well as their distinction (from those of the prava¯ha and marya¯da¯ paths). Just as (those who follow) the two (prava¯ha and marya¯da¯) are prohibited from the path of pus::ti, those following the path of pus::ti are described as different (from the other two) because of different illustrations of proof (prama¯n: a).

37 See Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s S´rı¯kr:s:n: a¯s´raya, the tenth of the S: od: as´agrantha¯h: , verse 7: aja¯mila¯didos:a¯n: a¯m: na¯s´ako ’nubhave sthitah: | jña¯pita¯khilama¯ha¯tmyah: kr:s:n: a eva gatir mama k7k, ‘‘He has destroyed the impurities of Aja¯mila and others and established them in his experience. Kr:s:n: a, whose complete greatness has been taught, is my only path’’. 123 194 F. M. Smith

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:thaktvanya¯ya, the coming together of two disparate notions. This axiom (nya¯ya), from Pu¯rvamı¯ma¯m: sa¯ (PMS 4.3.5–7; Kane HDh V.1: 86, V.2: 1350; Kurota 1980), says that two injunctive statements may prescribe purus:a¯rthata¯, 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 kha¯diram vı¯ryaka¯masya yaj- eta, ‘‘for one who desires power, one should sacrifice kha¯dira wood,’’ prescribes purus:a¯rthata¯. 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 kha¯diram yu¯po 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:a¯rthata¯ or kratvarthata¯, the point is that the most ideal choice of wood for constructing the yu¯pa is khadira. Thus, both statements come together as subsidiary (sés:a) to the principal (sés:in). The argument, then, is that all statements cited in support of three paths may be seen as subsidiary (sés:a)tobhakti (the sés:in), and thus included within its purview, thus negating the existence of three separate paths. This argument is then countered by Purus:ottama. The jı¯va or life essence of pus::ti individuals, along with their bodies and actions, he asserts, are eternal because they participate in the Lord’s eternal lı¯la¯s. This ontological condition expresses a qualitative difference between the bhakti of pus::ti jı¯vas and that of others. The practices of marya¯da¯ma¯rga bhakti lead to aks:arabrahman, 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-ma¯rga sa¯dhanas, not marya¯da¯ma¯rga sa¯dhanas. 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 pu¯ja¯, arcana, and other standard forms of domestic ritual must be performed with devotion, otherwise they become marya¯da¯. In defense of his assertion that the Vedas articulate bhaktima¯rga sa¯dhanas, Purus:ottama engages in the proven practice of Vedic interpretation according to bhakti principles. This fine art of interpretative prestidigitation is not unprecedented 38 in the Pus::tima¯rga; Vit::thalana¯tha used it more than a century earlier. In the present case, Purus:ottama offers an interpretation of R: gveda 7.100.4cd (a passage repeated in Maitra¯yan: i Sam: hita¯ 4.14.5 and Taittirı¯ya Bra¯hman: a 2.4.3.5), as an explanation for the compound jı¯vadehakr:tı¯na¯m: 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::tha’s engagement of the same phenomenon (although more strictly Advaita Veda¯nta than bhakti theology) in his commentary on the Maha¯bha¯rata. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 195 praises the greatness of Vis:n: u (appropriate for this context) reads: dhruva¯so asya kı¯ráyo jána¯sa uruks:itím: sujánima¯ caka¯ra. The probable translation of this is: ‘‘His people, scattered about, are settled; this well-born one (viz., the mighty striding 39 Vis:n: u) creates (for them) a spacious dwelling’’. Purus:ottama links the lexeme kr:ti, the third element in the compound jı¯vadehakr:tı¯na¯m: with the word kı¯ráyah: (stem kı¯ri-) in the R: V passage. He then glosses Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s kr:ti- and the R: V’s kı¯ráyah: (nom. pl. of kı¯ri-)asstutikriya¯vata¯m, ‘‘those whose occupation is (composing or reciting) hymns of praise,’’ which is to say those who are devoted to kı¯rtana, the act of singing the praises of the Lord, particularly Kr:s:n: a. Thus Purus:ottama derives kı¯ráyah: from the same verbal root as the word kı¯rtana. Whatever might be the meaning of kı¯ráyah: , it cannot be derived from the root Rkı¯rt (cl. 10), from which kı¯rtana 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 jána¯sah: from R: V 7.100.4c, then glosses both with jananasá¯lina¯m, ‘‘those who are endowed with the capacity for being born.’’ He then equates jı¯va in the PPM compound with dhruva¯sah: of the 40 R: V, and interprets them as cetana¯na¯m, ‘‘those who possess consciousness’’. 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::tijı¯vas is to earn a place in the eternal lı¯la¯ of Kr:s:n: a. Purus:ottama states, finally, that if the eternality of all souls (jı¯va¯h: ), bodies (deha¯h: ), and individual functions (kr:tayah: )is accepted, then the s´ruti would never have emphasized the eternality of those devoted to kı¯rtana (kı¯ráyah: ). He concludes this discussion by noting that all the prama¯n: as agree that the path of pus::ti is different from the marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha paths. Thus, the independent existence of three paths is proven. Nr:sim: hala¯ljı¯ states more pointedly that those who follow the prava¯hama¯rga are asuras. Their bodies are contrary to bhagavat seva¯ and they give pain to others. They perform agnihotra and other karmas of s´ruti and smr:ti, and they may enter states of institutionalized ascetic renunciation. They may be divine (daiva), but they are not pus::ti. He notes that the s´ruti states that the jı¯va that praises Bhagava¯n is eternal. For the pus::ti soul the paths of prava¯ha and marya¯da¯ 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 janmastha¯na or birthplace of prava¯ha jı¯vas is in the mind of Bhagava¯n, the origin of marya¯da¯ jı¯vas is in the speech of Bhagava¯n, and the source of pus::tijı¯vasis the body of Bhagava¯n. He states that the Veda is created in the mind of Bhagava¯n, that it is a creation of a¯surik ma¯ya¯. Thus he does not go as far as Purus:ottama in his interpretation of the R: V. However, Nr:sim: hala¯ljı¯’s commentary does not carry the

39 Following Geldner’s translation: ‘‘Ansa¨ssig wurden dessen besitzlose Leute. Er, der gute Geburt gibt, schuf weite Wohnstatt’’ (1951.2; p. 270). Geldner derives kı¯ráyah: from Rkr:¯, to scatter, which makes contextual sense, although he admits that the word is uncertain. 40 dhruva¯so asya kı¯rayo jana¯sa iti s´rutau stutikriya¯vata¯m: jananasá¯lina¯m: cetana¯na¯m: nityatvas´ra¯van: a¯d yatha¯ pus::tima¯rge bhinnatvam itaravailaks:an: yam... 123 196 F. M. Smith intellectual weight of Purus:ottama’s; it is important and noteworthy especially in passages such as this because it is in Brajbha¯s:a¯, and because it spoke directly to large numbers of Pus::tima¯rga devotees to whom it was more immediately accessible. Verses 8c–9 sargabhedam: pravaks:ya¯mi svaru¯pa¯ngakriya_ ¯yutam k8k iccha¯ma¯tren: a manasa¯ prava¯ham: sr:s::tava¯n harih: | vacasa¯ vedama¯rgam: hi pus::tim: ka¯yena nisćayah: k9k I will now explain the divisions of creation according to their links with the essential form (svaru¯pa), the limbs (anga_ ), and the functions (kriya¯) (of the Lord). As a result of his independent desire alone, it is certain that Hari created the prava¯ha path with (his) mind, the path of the Veda with (his) speech, and the pus::ti 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::tima¯rga manner of thinking, the ma¯ya¯va¯da of Sánkara_ and schools that advocate the performance of Vedic s´rauta ritual in order to achieve primary religious or spiritual objectives. The importance to Vallabha¯ca¯rya of the avata¯ra, especially the view that Kr:s:n: a is higher than Vis:n: u, cannot be underestimated. Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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::ti, prava¯ha,ormarya¯da¯, are inalienable parts. As such, pus::tijı¯vas emerge from the Lord’s beautiful limbs (Purus:ottama: s´rı¯ anga_ ) and are parts of his essential nature (svaru¯pa). Similarly, prava¯ha jı¯vas, those who subsist within the flow of the world, are products of the Lord’s mind, while marya¯da¯ jı¯vas, 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya, 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya, these three lines emphasize that one should comprehend the essential form of the Lord prescribed for different jı¯vas, as well as the practices they should perform. For Vallabha¯ca¯rya, 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 (bha¯va) during performance of seva¯.

41 This radical valorization of the body is found most notably in the Siddha¯ntamukta¯vali. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 197

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:aságrantha¯h: , coming to six pages, occurs here. By the word vacasa¯ in 9c, ‘‘through speech,’’ Vallabha¯ca¯rya explains that the path of the Veda (vedama¯rgam) 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 va¯n: i, the divine word itself detatched from the Veda. Purus:ottama points out that the marya¯da¯ path was created through the agencies of both mind and speech, while the pus::ti 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::tijı¯vas were created from the body of the Lord. This verse interprets the word ka¯ya (body, ka¯yena 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 Praja¯pati, 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 ru¯pam abhu¯d dvedha¯ yat ka¯yam abhicaks:ate | ta¯bhya¯m: ru¯pavibha¯ga¯bhya¯m: mithunam: samapadyata k). According to Purus:ottama, the creation of the mind (manas), through which Hari created prava¯ha jı¯vas, is discussed in s´ruti, namely in Taittirı¯ya Bra¯hman: a 2.2.9.5: ‘‘Mind was created from non-being, mind created Praja¯pati, Praja¯pati created beings. Indeed, this highest one is established in the mind alone’’ (asato ’dhi mano ’s:rjata, manah: praja¯patim as:rjata, praja¯patih: praja¯ asr:jata, tad va¯ idam manasy eva paramam pratis::thitam). 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 Praja¯pati 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 Pura¯n: as, establishing the latter as s´ruti. However, because manas is created from asat or non-being, it is considered external to the svaru¯pa 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 lı¯la¯. Purus:ottama glosses the word nisćaya in 9d as nitara¯m: cayah: , a complete or absolute assemblage, which is to say that the Lord became completely aware of his own svaru¯pa.Thissvaru¯pa is constituted entirely of bliss (a¯nanda eva). It is aks:arabrahman, the efficient cause of the marya¯da¯ma¯rga. The commentator then commences a long discussion of the word iccha¯ma¯tren: 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 svaru¯pa¯tmaka, an essential part of his very form. The Lord’s body or ka¯ya, out of which flows pus:ti jı¯vas, 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). 123 198 F. M. Smith

The authority of another s´ruti passage, Cha¯ndogya Upanis:ad 2.2.3 (also Taittirı¯ya Upanis:ad 2.6), bahu sya¯m praja¯yeyeti (‘‘May I be many, may I procreate’’), indi- 43 cates the creative will of the Lord. On manasa¯ (9a), Purus:ottama refutes the idea of the ma¯ya¯va¯dins that the mind operates through ma¯ya¯, indicating that he disagrees with the notion of Sánkara_ and his followers that ma¯ya¯ 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 Sánkara_ or ma¯ya¯va¯da school treat ma¯ya¯ as an independent potency, operating to create illusion of the phenomenal world by separating it from the absolute. Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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 Sáktı¯ and Ma¯ya¯, Vallabha¯ca¯rya sees ma¯ya¯ as a power intimately related, indeed inseparable, from the Lord.44 Ma¯ya¯ 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 ma¯ya¯. In this way Ma¯ya¯, personified as a sákti or divine capacity (if not fully identical with Sákti 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 sáktis, one must recall that brahman has within it all contrary things (viruddhadharma¯s´raya). Yet in its guise as aks:arabrahman (rather than Bhagava¯n) it has within it only the marya¯da¯sr:s::ti, the creation of individuals observant of dharma and ritual, and living through the Vedas. This, emphatically, excludes the pus::tisr:s::ti, 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 marya¯da¯ and pus::tijı¯vas are real, as speech and the Lord’s body are real. But the mind can have many different attributes,

43 Cf. Sá¯stra¯rthaprakaran: am 27: bahu sya¯m: praja¯yeyeti vı¯ks:a¯ tasya hy abhu¯t satı¯ | tad iccha¯ma¯tratas tasma¯d brahmabhu¯ta¯m: sácetana¯ 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 upa¯da¯naka¯ran: a, because jı¯vas here are said to arise from brahman, which in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s terminology means aks:arabrahman, the body of the Lord. For the phrase bahu sya¯m: praja¯yeyeti, see van Buitenen (1964). 44 The verse reads: s´riya¯ pus:tya¯ gira¯ ka¯ntya¯,kı¯rtya¯ tus::tyelayorjaya¯ | vidyaya¯vidyaya¯ sáktya¯ ma¯yaya¯ ca nives:itam k ‘‘He was attended by S´rı¯, Pus::t¯,ı Gı¯r, Ka¯ntı¯, Tus::t¯,ı Ila¯, U¯ rja¯, Vidya¯, Avidya¯, Sáktı¯, and Ma¯ya¯’’. This is a list of goddesses or feminine principles that are identified with and preside over different aspects of life: S´rı¯ as or over beauty and wealth, Pus::t¯ı as or over nutrition or expansion, Gı¯r as or over speech, Ka¯ntı¯ as or over splendor, Tus::t¯ı as or over contentment, Ila¯ as or over the earth, U¯ rja¯ as or over fluid essences, Vidya¯ as or over knowledge, Avidya¯ as or over impermanence, Sáktı¯ as or over celestial energy, and Ma¯ya¯ as or over illusion. Vallabha¯ca¯rya does not comment extensively on these sáktis in the Subodhinı¯, but explains ma¯ya¯ as sarvabhavanasa¯marthyam: vya¯mohika¯ 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 Tattva¯rthadı¯panibandha; his objective there being quite different from what is ordinarily found in commentaries. The topic of the relationship between various named sáktis 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. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 199 including ma¯ya¯. Thus, after much disputation, Purus:ottama accepts the position that prava¯hı¯ jı¯vas are twofold: sahaja¯sura (‘‘whose demonic nature is inherent’’), whom Vallabha¯ca¯rya later calls durjña (24d below), and asura¯vesín (‘‘those who are possessed by demons’’), whom Vallabha¯ca¯rya later calls ajña (24d below). The former are those who are born with no chance of entering into the Lord, whose a¯sura or demonic nature is inborn (sahaja). These a¯surı¯ jı¯vas are ma¯yika, 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: sás or fragments of Bhagava¯n. As an aside aimed at the ma¯ya¯va¯dins, Purus:ottama says that those who maintain that the prapañca or practical world is ma¯yika, the product of ma¯ya¯, are asuras. With respect to asuras, Purus:ottama’s doctrine is that the Lord created enemies, all of whom are asuras, thus prava¯hı¯ns, in order to experience vı¯rarasa, 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- gava¯n 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’’ (bhagava¯n hi sarvarasabhokta¯ ra¯javadraman: a¯rtham svasvaru¯pa¯tmakam pra- pañcam kr:tava¯n). The authority of s´ruti is invoked here in the form of the oft-cited statement from the Taittirı¯ya Upanis:ad (2.7.1) raso vai sah: . Contextually, this should be translated, ‘‘This [world] which is well-made (sukr:tam), is the [funda- 45 mental] essence (rasa)’’. However, in Vais:n: ava bhakti traditions rasa is regarded (even in this s´ruti statement) as mood or emotion, with the implicit point that Kr:s:n: a (which is the interpretation of sah: in the s´ruti) is the producer, enjoyer, and experiencer (bhokta¯) of all emotions, especially as they are constructed in the classical texts on Sanskrit poetics (alam: ka¯rasá¯stra). Thus, pra¯va¯hika jı¯vas were created by the Lord for his enjoyment (raman: eccha¯). Enemies of the Lord, whom he created, are asura¯vesíns such as Prahla¯da or Hiran: yakasípu (cf. BhP 7.2– 7), thus ultimately eligible for sa¯yujya, merging into the Lord’s lı¯la¯ or into his manifestation 46 as aks:arabrahman. A question arises here: why would the Lord create imperfection and ignorance? The answer, according to Purus:ottama, can be sought in sábdprama¯n: a, in the words of s´ruti. He cites the phrase ma¯m apra¯pya, from BhG 16.20: a¯surı¯m: yonim: a¯panna mu¯d: ha¯ janmani janmani | ma¯m apra¯pyaiva kaunteya tato ya¯nty adhamam: gatim k ‘‘Those who attain birth in demonic wombs are bewildered in birth after birth. They can never approach me (ma¯m apra¯pya), 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 iccha¯ma¯tren: a only with prava¯ham, 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s autocommentary (Vivr¸tti) on the final work in the S: od: aságrantha¯h:, the Seva¯phalam (and, of course, on commentaries on the Vivr¸tti). But see Smith 1998, introduction and discussion on verse 8 of the Nirodhalaks:an: a. 123 200 F. M. Smith interpreting iccha¯ as the instrumental cause (nimittakaran: a)ofprava¯hı¯ jı¯vas. Their efficient cause (upa¯da¯nakaran: a)ismanas (Purus:ottama’s first siddha¯nta)or ma¯ya¯sákti (a further siddha¯nta). In considering manas as the upa¯da¯nakaran: a, Purus:ottama regards the nimittakaran: a, the Lord’s wish (iccha¯), as subsidiary. He employs an image that Vallabha¯caarya has used before (Sá¯stra¯rthaprakaran: am 28, which itself was inspired by Br:hada¯ran: yaka Upanis:ad 2.1.20) the relationship of living beings to brahman as one of jı¯vas emerging from the Lord as sparks from a fire.47 The comparative unreality or qualified reality of the prava¯hı¯ creation is, then, accounted for by vika¯ra, impure transformation.48 Purus:ottama presents several arguments with respect to the position of the prava¯hı¯ creation (s´:rs::ti). First, the sr:s::ti 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 Veda¯ntic position that dreams are apra¯ma¯n: ya, they cannot be employed as formal proof of a propo- sition. Although they may occasionally contain useful suggestions or omens (su¯caka, BS 3.1.4), a dream creation is, in the final analysis, mere ma¯ya¯ (ma¯yama¯tram) because it is not a full manifestation or reflection of the Lord’s creation (BS 3.2.3: ma¯ya¯ma¯tram: tu ka¯rtsnyena¯nabhivyaktasvaru¯patva¯t). Purus:ottama emphasizes the word ka¯rtsnyena, ‘‘fully, completely’’. By this, he appears to be saying that prava¯hı¯ jı¯vas are inherently flawed (recall the term sahaja¯sura above), just as a dream does not inherently reflect objective reality, even if it contains references to that reality. The Lord’s ma¯ya¯sákti 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 ma¯ya¯sákti the tale from the BhP in which the Lord created the universe from his mouth when Yasóda¯ looked into it (10.7.33–37). In this way ma¯ya¯sákti produces a substance, namely ma¯ya¯, which mimics the created world. The resultant ma¯ya¯sr:s::ti is constructed in the image of the satyasr:s::ti, the true creation, but is at least partially vya¯moha, illusion. Because the Lord’s ability (sa¯marthya) is no less than his svaru¯pa or essential form, which is infinite in its potentiality, he can create anything through his ma¯ya¯sákti, including pra¯va¯hika jı¯vas. It is important to understand that these jı¯vas are in a sense no less real than marya¯da¯ or pus::tijı¯vas, 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 pra¯va¯hika jı¯vas are like actors on a stage: their power to evoke is real, but their actions and characters are invented.

47 Sá¯stra¯rthaprakaran: am 28: sr:s::tya¯dau nirgata¯h: sarve nira¯ka¯ra¯s tad icchaya¯ | visphulinga_ ¯ iva¯gnes tu sadam: séna 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: sá)’’. In his autocommentary on this verse, Vallabha¯ca¯rya glosses sadam: séna (by means of his beak) with satpra¯dha¯nyena (from the primacy of his being). Disregarding this curious locution, note Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s indebtedness to BA¯ U 2.1.20, which reads (in part): sa yathorn: ava¯bhis tantunoccared yatha¯gneh: ks:udra¯ visphulinga_ ¯ vyucca- ranty evam eva¯sma¯da¯tmanah: sarve pra¯n: a¯h: sarve loka¯h: sarve deva¯h: sarva¯n:i bhu¯ta¯ni 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 (pra¯n: a¯h: ), all the worlds, all the gods, and all beings spring from this self (a¯tman)’’ (1998; p. 63). 48 A good summary of Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s views on n the evolution of jı¯vas may be found in La¯lu¯ Bhat::ta’s Prameyaratna¯rn: ava (Ocean of Jewels), ch. 2. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 201

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 (pada¯rtha¯h: ). This is how ma¯ya¯sákti affects us. We feel qualities such as good, bad, living, dying, taking birth, hard, soft, flowering, etc. The flower is a pada¯rtha,but we experience it in terms of its qualities rather than as brahman. This is due to ma¯ya¯sákti. Because of this habit the manas becomes covered by the substance created by ma¯ya¯, regardless of the state of grace into which one is born. Verse 10 mu¯leccha¯tah: phalam: loke vedoktam: vaidike ’pi ca | ka¯yena tu phalam: pus::tau bhinneccha¯to ’pi naikata¯ k10k Fruit arises in the world (for those following the prava¯ha path) because of primal desire. And, again, the fruit for one who follows the Veda (those on the marya¯da¯ path) is described in the Veda (svarga or moks:a). But for one who follows the pus::ti 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 dhu¯ma, light and smoke. Both of these, he says, are marya¯da¯ paths. The path of light is the path of the gods (uttara¯yana), which indicates heaven (svarga) or liberation (moks:a). The path of smoke is the path of the ancestors (daks:in: a¯yana), 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya and virtually all other bhakti theologians, svarga is enunciated in the ritualistically oriented Vedic texts and the Pu:rvamı¯ma¯m: 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, prava¯hins, those who follow the prava¯ha path, cannot achieve either of these states after death, excepting those who are possessed by deities (daiva¯vesín), who might eventually be eligible for either of them. For the vast majority of prava¯hins, the fruit that is realizable is exclusively worldly (laukika), the product of desire (sisr:ks:a¯). Fundamental desire (mu¯leccha¯, emphatically different from ‘‘original 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 prava¯hin remain in this state and the prava¯hin’s insuperable desire for fruits of the world.49 The higher fruit of the marya¯da¯ma¯rga is 50 most often the desire to uplift (unninı¯s:a¯), although Purus:ottama allows the possibility that the marya¯da¯ma¯rgı¯ can have lower intentions (adhoninı¯s:a¯). Another desire on this path, he says, might be to bring about liberation in another person (mumocayis:a¯). Purus:ottama glosses ka¯yena (10c, ‘‘with the body’’) as a¯nandama¯tra,

49 Compare this with Navaratnam (the sixth in the series of sixteen works) 2cd: sarves´varas´ ca sarva¯tma¯ nijeccha¯tah: 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 uddha¯ra, 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 va¯rta¯ literature. It is of note that Purus:ottama uses the term unninı¯s:a¯ here, seemingly because he is referring to human desire to uplit rather than the Lord’s. 123 202 F. M. Smith

‘‘pure bliss,’’ which is the svaru¯pa or essential form of Bhagava¯n’s divinity and embodiment. One experiences bliss through one’s body and experiences lı¯la¯ differently when entering into the svaru¯pa, or, as stated here, the body of the Lord. Thus, for the pus::tijı¯va, 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: aságrantha¯h: , See Yamuna¯s::takam, 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)ofanugraha. This idea also appears in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s Vivaran: a on the first verse of the Seva¯phalam, 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::tha or other realms. Purus:ottama provides several citations to show that the fruit of pus::ti 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 ta¯n aham: dvis:ato va¯kya¯d bhinna¯ jı¯va¯h: prava¯hin: ah: | ata evetarau bhinnau sa¯ntau moks:apravesátah: k11k The statement beginning ta¯n aham dvis:ato (Bhagavad Gı¯ta¯ 16.19) (demonstrates that) prava¯hins are different. The other two (marya¯da¯ and pus::tijı¯vas) achieve ends different from those (following the prava¯ha path); they achieve liberation and entrance into the Lord, respectively. BhG 16.19 reads: ta¯n aham dvis:atah: kru¯ra¯n samsa¯res:unara¯dhama¯n|ks:ipa¯my ajasram asúbha¯na¯surı¯s: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 prava¯ha jı¯vas are not daiva¯vesín, they are not possessed by divine personalities that can eventually allow them to achieve svarga, moks:a,or true bhakti. They are demonic jı¯vas created as such by the Lord. Purus:ottama identifies three kinds of prava¯ha jı¯va: (1) those who hate the lord or his avata¯ras (mu¯laru¯pa¯vata¯radves:ah: ); (2) those who hate any of his other manifestations, such as Síva, or his devotees (vibhı¯tya¯didves:ah: ); and (3) those who hate the world, which is none other than his created form (jagadru¯padves:ah: ). The first two are asura¯vesíns (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 emotions are directed against him. Most of these cases may be classified as daiva¯vesá 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 gopı¯s, 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). Prava¯hins are considered separate from such pus::ti and

123 Predestination and Hierarchy 203 marya¯da¯ jı¯vas 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s missing passages through his commentary. He feels that there is material missing from the accounts of prava¯ha and marya¯da¯ creations. Purus:ottama here defines the pus::tijı¯va: ‘‘The defining characteristic of pus::tijı¯vas is abiding in a state of devotion that is instrumental in acquiring the love of the Lord’’ (bhagavatpriyatvasa¯dhakabhaktimattvam: pus::tijı¯va¯na¯m: laks:an: am). Never- theless, he states that both pus::ti and marya¯da¯ jı¯vas fully traverse jı¯va-hood, neither returning again to the sam: sa¯ra; the pus::tijı¯va is conjoined with the Lord while the marya¯da¯ jı¯va 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 tasma¯jjı¯va¯h: pus::tima¯rge bhinna¯ eva na sam: sáyah: | bhagavadru¯paseva¯rtham: tatsr:s::tir na¯nyatha¯ bhavet k12k Therefore, souls who are on the pus::ti 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 jı¯vas independent (nirupa¯dhika) 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 jı¯va is the actor (kartr:) that functions through the buddhi, manas, etc. Conversely, the fact of being an independent actor (kartr:tvam) belongs to the jı¯va but is expressed through the buddhi, manas, and other parts of the antah: karan: a. The jı¯va is, thus, the kartr: of all three kinds. This independence may be expressed in the following table:

j¯ıva means fruit pus:t:i — bhakti — purus:ottama marya¯da¯ — sa¯dha¯ran: abha¯va — mukti prava¯ha — dves:a — andhatamas

Thus, the pus::tijı¯va realizes the Supreme Lord through devotion, the marya¯da¯ jı¯va realizes liberation through experience that is consistent with the prescriptions of dharma available to all people, and the prava¯ha jı¯va realizes blinding darkness through hatred. Purus:ottama cites BhP 4.29.46, which states that Bhagava¯n’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¯ yam anugr:hn: a¯ti bhagava¯na¯tmabha¯vitah: | sa jaha¯ti matim: loke vede ca parinis::thita¯m k). Thus, the experience of bhakti, when reﬂected upon seriously, can redirect an individual to the pus::ti path from the prava¯ha or marya¯da¯ 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::tijı¯va 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 123 204 F. M. Smith commentator when turning for support to a foundational text that is accorded the status of s´ruti, 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 bhagavadru¯paseva¯ (12c): (1) as a s:as::thı¯-tatpurus:a (a dependent determinative compound in which the referent is in the genitive), as translated above, indicating seva¯ of the bhagavadru¯pa; and (2) as a tr:tı¯ya-tatpurus:a (a dependent determinative compound in which the referent is in the instrumental), or seva¯ by means of the bhagavadru¯pa. Both, it appears, describe the personality of pus::tijı¯vas, expressing their divine intentionality. Only pus::ti bhaktas can perform ru¯paseva¯ (ru¯pen: a svasaundaryen: ava¯ ya¯ seva¯rtham: tatsr:s::tih: ). Purus:ottama returns to a topic he addressed at length earlier, that although the BhG speaks of only two categories of jı¯va, daivı¯ and a¯surı¯, in fact there are three. This, he says, is reiterated in other s´rutis, and cites the passage, trayah: pra¯ja¯patya¯ deva¯ manus:ya¯ asura¯s´ ca, ‘‘The three categories of Praja¯pati’s descendants are deities, humans, and demons. Purus:ottama states that this is in the BA¯ U, but it is in fact summarized from BA¯ U 5.2.1.51 Nevertheless, there are two kinds of daivı¯ jı¯va. One practices for their own enjoyment, namely the marya¯da¯ma¯rgı¯s, while the other, the pus::tima¯rgı¯s, practices for the Lord’s enjoyment. The Lord’s play (krı¯d: a¯) with prava¯ha jı¯vas is very distant, with marya¯da¯ souls it is indirect, but there is no distance from pus::tijı¯vas. The enlightenment (jı¯vanmukti) of a liberated individual (jı¯vanmukta) is not an experience of abheda¯tmakamukti, an indivisible state of union with the Lord; it is merely jı¯vanmukti, a state of living liberation in which the jı¯va is free to leave the samsa¯ra without misery. This jı¯va, however, must still be the recipient of the Lord’s anugraha in order to become a pus::tijı¯va, and that this status is solely within the Lord province (varan: a). Marya¯da¯ jı¯vasorjı¯vanmuktas can perform na¯maseva¯, that is they can serve the Lord through recitation of his name, but they do not have the innate adhika¯ra or eligibility to perform ru¯paseva¯, divine service on the form of the Lord. Purus:ottama’s point is that jı¯vas created for seva¯ are pus::tima¯rgı¯ only, thus they do not allow other lifestyle choices to distract them from this seva¯. This is why pus::tijı¯vas are different from others. Verses 13–14b svaru¯pen: a¯vata¯ren: alingena_ ca gun: ena ca | ta¯ratamyam: na svaru¯pe dehe va¯ tatkriya¯su va¯ k13k tatha¯pi ya¯vata¯ ka¯ryam: ta¯vat tasya karoti hi | With respect to their essential natures (svaru¯pa), their incarnation as living beings (avata¯ra), their physical bodies (linga_ ), and their individual attributes (gun: a), there is no natural hierarchy (among these three kinds of jı¯va). Nev- ertheless, (the Lord) creates these distinctions in essential nature, body, and their respective actions in accordance with his own purpose.

51 The BA¯ U passage reads: traya¯h: pra¯ja¯patya¯h: praja¯patau pitari brahmacaryam u¯s:ur deva¯ manus:ya¯ asura¯h: , ‘‘The three kinds of descendants of Praja¯pati who lived with Praja¯pati as Vedic students were deities, men, and demons.’’ 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 205

Tatha¯pi (‘‘nevertheless’’) in 14a suggests that there may be differences in the abilities and qualities of pus::tijı¯vas in spite of the assertion here that there is no natural hierarchy (ta¯ratamyam). This curious assertion of differences, which one might think opposes much of the doctrine stated here, is, rather, a factor of the Lord’s lı¯la¯, states Purus:ottama. Ka¯rya, he says, indicates lı¯la¯,astasya must be interpreted as pus::tijı¯vasya. Each of the innumerable possible lı¯la¯s possesses its own instrumentality through which actualization as a pus::tijı¯va is achieved. To achieve his or her predestined position, every jı¯va must be unique in terms of its jı¯va, body, and action. Lı¯la¯ does not assume conformity; rather it assumes diversity and difference. Regardless, the controller of the lı¯la¯ is always the Lord. He controls who or what exists in the lı¯la¯, as well as its innumerable simultaneous arrangements. Thus, the different aspects of lı¯la¯ are played by different jı¯vas. One jı¯va 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 jı¯va, deha and kriya¯, beings, particularly pus::tijı¯vas, experience lı¯la¯ 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, ha¯nau tu¯pa¯yanasábdasés:atva¯t kusá¯c chandah: stutyupaga¯navat taduktam. In order to understand this su¯tra contextually, it must be translated in the light of Mun: d: aka Up. 3.1.3cd, cited by Vallabha¯ca¯rya in his An: ubha¯s:ya (and Sánkara_ in his Brah- masu¯trabha¯s:ya): tada¯ vidva¯n pun: yapa¯pe vidhu¯ya nirañjanah: paramam: sa¯myam upaiti, ‘‘Then the wise man, shaking off virtue and vice, becomes stainless and achieves the highest sense of identity,’’ the paramam: sa¯myam being brahman.This upanis:adic statement is regarded by Purus:ottama (and Sánkara)_ as filling in the lacunae in the su¯tra, 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 terminology. This is based on the model provided (in Sa¯mavedic chant in the Vedic sacrificial ritual), in which kusá (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, ha¯nau indicates the absence of mention of the traits or dharmas (or associated terminology [upa¯yanasábda-]) such as a¯nanda, yasás, vı¯rya, etc., which indicate that the devotee has assumed union with the Lord because the Lord’s dharmas appear in him. Although this su¯tra from the BS is not mentioned by the other commentators, all of them, especially Gokulana¯tha and Raghuna¯tha (both grandsons of Vallabha¯ca¯rya and sons of Vit::thalana¯thajı¯), emphasize the alaukika or transcendental nature of the lı¯la¯s in which devotees assume these divine qualities. Purus:ottama elaborates on the four categories—svaru¯pa, avata¯ra, linga_ , and gun: a — that define the pus::tijı¯va (or, for that matter, all beings). For the pus::tijı¯va, these four, cast in the most positive possible light, constitute their inherent sac- cida¯nandaghana, the entirety of their being, consciousness, and blissfulness. Purus:ottama describes the quality of their avata¯ra, their incarnation, as bhagavato 123 206 F. M. Smith

’laukikarı¯tya¯ sattva¯dhis::tha¯ne: they are established in purity as a result of having been placed in the transcendent realm of the Lord. Purus:ottama glosses linga_ as bhagavato dhvajavajra¯dı¯ni: the pus::tijı¯va has characteristic physical marks, including a dhvaja on the chest and a vajra on the foot. With respect to gun: a,he says bhagavata ais´varya¯dayah: saukuma¯rya¯dayas´ ca: the pus::tijı¯va possesses the six gun: as of the lord, namely majesty (ais´varya), potency (vı¯rya), glory (yasás), beauty (s´rı¯), knowledge (jña¯na), and indifference to the world (vaira¯gya) (cf. BhP 10.85– 90, Nirodhalaks:an: a 15). All of this results in kaivalya, the pure play of sac- cida¯nanda in oneself, enjoyment of one’s own bliss. This, he says, is not the bliss of nirgun: ava¯da, the experience of the attributeless brahman of the ma¯ya¯va¯dins; it is, rather, dvaitasa¯peks:alı¯la¯ or lı¯la¯ not separate from form. When lı¯la¯ is the reason for the creation (sr:s::ti), then the inherent nature (svaru¯pa)ofthelı¯la¯ must be manifestly described. It is interesting that Purus:ottama here uses the term kaivalya (rather than mukti), which in Veda¯nta bears the sense of realization of a pure self separate from all else (cf. Sánkara_ on Cha¯ndogya Up. 8.3.1).52 Verses 14c–15b te hi dvidha¯ súddhamis´rabheda¯n mis´ras tridha¯ punah: k14k prava¯ha¯divibhedena bhagavatka¯ryasiddhaye | These (pus::tijı¯vas) are of two kinds, pure and mixed. In order to fulfill the intentions of the Lord, the mixed (jı¯vas) are in turn of three kinds according to a (further) division of prava¯ha, etc. Vallabha¯ca¯rya nuances his categories by adding subdivisions within the category of pus::tijı¯va. Because of the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that the PPM is incomplete as it stands, it is possible that Vallabha¯ca¯rya assigned subdivisions to the other major categories as well. In any event, the subdivisions within the primary category of pus::tijı¯va are prava¯ha-pus:ti, marya¯da¯-pus::ti, and pus:ti-pus::ti. They have slightly different constitutions and attributes, as well as separate designated roles in the lı¯la¯s, 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 lı¯la¯s. Indeed, Purus:ottama operates under the assumption that these variations are not simply according to category or subcategory of bhakta; he states, rather, that pus::tijı¯vas on the bhakti path have an active choice in their roles in the lı¯la¯s, 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 svaru¯pa, meaning they have particularly strong devotion for the svaru¯pa or form of the Lord. In this case the lı¯la¯ becomes an instrument for gaining knowledge of the Lord. Others have particularly strong devotion equally distributed between the svaru¯pa and the lı¯la¯, 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 svaru¯pa and the lı¯la¯ as equal, not

52 Purus:ottama does not here draw the word kaivalya from Yogsasá¯stra (cf. Yogasu¯tras 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. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 207 prioritizing the svaru¯pa over the lı¯la¯. Some other pus::tijı¯vas, says Purus:ottama, are self-motivated, and yet others are motivated by the guidance and commands of the bhagavadı¯yas, those devotees who are dearest to the Lord. Others, again, exist simply in order to become attached to the Lord. Some of these pus::tijı¯vas 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::tya¯ vimis´ra¯h: sarvajña¯h: prava¯hen: a kriya¯rata¯ k15k marya¯daya¯ gun: ajña¯stesúddha¯h: premna¯tidurlabha¯h: | Among the mixed jı¯vas, those who are pus::ti-pus:ti are characterized as all- knowing; those who are prava¯ha-pus::ti enjoy the ritual (of the Lord’s seva¯); marya¯da¯-pus::ti (jı¯vas) know the Lord’s attributes (such as majesty, valor, etc.); (while) pure (súddha) pus::tijı¯vas, who are extremely rare, have undiluted love for the Lord. This verse further elaborates the propensities of jı¯vas whose dominant pus::ti qualities are mixed with those of the other major categories, although the concluding quarter verse provides perspective by stating that the pure pus::tijı¯va experiences love (preman) for the Lord that is implicitly unmixed and complete in all respects. Bhaktas whose pus::ti qualities are stated, ironically, to be mixed with other pus::ti qualities, apparently a step below those of a ‘‘pure’’ (súddha) pus::ti state, are omniscient (sarvajña), because, we must assume, they do not have the highest appreciation for the seva¯, the lı¯la¯s, or the attributes of the Lord. Those with dominant pus::ti personalities but mixed with prava¯ha 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::ti-pus::tijı¯va and the maximum appreciation of the Lord’s qualities that the marya¯da¯-pus::ti and súddha-pus::tijı¯vas possess. Similarly, the marya¯da¯-pus::tijı¯vas understand and manifest the Lord’s personality characteristics (gun: a), but presumably 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::ti aspect of these combinations. Purus:ottama again makes the point that these classes are nih: sa¯dhana, that their natures render their religiosity a function of their being rather than a result of any kind of ‘‘practice’’ (sa¯dhana). All-knowing (sarvajña), he says, means that the svaru¯pa or inherent form of the Lord is known in its entirety. The Lord chooses these jı¯vas, but he also desires that the jı¯va should know him. They know the svaru¯pa of the Lord as he really is. Their defining feature is their sarvajña¯pakatva: the cognizance and knowledge of the form of the Lord is an inherent constituent of their bhakti. This jña¯na, he emphasizes, has nothing to do with the jña¯nama¯rga, the path of knowledge that is the primary province of the much-derided ma¯ya¯va¯dins. What distinguishes these mixed pus::tijı¯vas from the súddhapus:ti-jı¯vas is the former are not the Vrajabhaktas described in the tenth skandha of the BhP, and must resort

123 208 F. M. Smith to singing and other forms of (nih: sa¯dhana) devotional activity. Nevertheless, among enlightened beings and siddhas these great, albeit mixed, pus::tijı¯vas who are dedicated to Na¯ra¯yan: a are extremely rare, even among tens of millions of beings. Na¯rada, he says, is an example. Purus:ottama explains that the basic nature of a prava¯hin is to have a strong inclination towards worldly action and ritual (karma). Enjoyment of the actions (kriya¯rata¯h: ), he specifies, refers to ritual prescribed in the Pan˜cara¯tra, etc. He lists Nimi and S´rutadeva as examples. Nimi was an ancient king of Mithila¯ (and the bodiless [videha] father of king Janaka) who was cursed by the sage Vasis::tha to lose his body after Nimi faithlessly failed to wait for Vasis::tha 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: upura¯n: a 4.5.1–23). S´rutadeva was a learned and righteous Brahman from Mithila¯ who lived, according to the BhP, after Nimi. Along with Bahula¯s´va, the king of Mithila¯ at the time, he received Kr:s:n: aasa 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 53 of all the gods (BhP 10.86.13–59 ). Thus, prava¯hapus::tijı¯vas enjoy pu¯ja¯ 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. Marya¯da¯pus::tijı¯vas are characterized by knowledge of those divine qualities such as sattva (clarity), ais´varya (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::ti, 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 marya¯da¯ qualities as well. Some jı¯vas are simply not attracted to these attributes, but concentrate their energy only on the svaru¯pa 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 súddha-pus::ti have unconditional love (nirupa¯dhiprema) 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 bha¯vena), 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 lı¯la¯: individuals of any of the four categories may have pure undiluted devotion (súddha-jı¯vas) 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¯ aviditvaivam avaja¯nanty asu¯yavah: | gurum: ma¯m: vipram a¯tma¯nam arca¯da¯v ijyadr:s::tayah: k. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 209 pure minds, but their bodies may be inadequate to carry out proper seva¯; or their jı¯vas, minds, and bodies (jı¯va, 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:a¯m: hi phalam: tv atra niru¯pyate k16k bhagava¯n eva hi phalam: sa yatha¯ vibhaved bhuvi | gun: asvaru¯pabhedena tatha¯ tes:a¯m: phalam: bhavet k17k Thus, the creation (of these jı¯vas) as well as their fruit has been duly described. Indeed, Bhagava¯n is the only fruit. (For these pus::tijı¯vas) 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::tijı¯vas whose practice is nih: sa¯dhana, the svaru¯pa of the Lord is (in a manner of speaking) the sa¯dhana 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 (svabha¯va) and degree of eligibility (adhika¯ra). Each bhakta is capable of manifesting different divine attributes (gun: a), such as majesty (ais´varya), 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 (adhika¯ra) to become devoted to different svaru¯pas of the Lord that appear to them, including the infant, adolescent or youthful Kr:s:n: a(ba¯lyapaugan: d: akisóraru¯- pen: a¯virbhavati). Interestingly, Purus:ottama also admits the possibility that other avata¯ras of Vis:n: u, including Narasim: ha, Ra¯ma, and Va¯mana, can also generate this paramount fruit (yadarthe yadgun: aru¯pen: a¯virbhavati nr:sim: hara¯mava¯mana¯diru¯pen: a tes:a¯m: muktva¯pi tena ru¯pen: a phalati). Such ru¯pas can be seen by devotees in the space in their hearts, in the lı¯la¯, or in the (divine archetypal) Vr:nda¯vana (hr:day- abhu¯mau lı¯la¯sthane vr:nda¯vana¯dau). This occurs, he notes, because this fruit induces different rasas, devotional moods that are the true measure of exalted devotional states. Verses 18–19 a¯saktau bhagava¯n eva sá¯pam: da¯payati kvacit | ahanka_ ¯re ’thava¯ loke tanma¯rgastha¯pana¯ya hi k18k na te pa¯s:an: d: ata¯m: ya¯ti na ca roga¯dyupadrava¯h: | maha¯nubha¯va¯h: pra¯yen: asá¯stram: súddhatvahetave k19k When (a pus::tijı¯va becomes) attached (to samsa¯ra, or to a different deity, fruit or sa¯dhana) (or if such a jı¯va) 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::tijı¯vas) 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.

123 210 F. M. Smith

Anyone following the pus::ti path can still fall, although not totally out of the category. A pus::tijı¯va has been chosen for this position by the Lord and must retain that pus::ti nature and identity, irrespective of the imposition of a curse. Thus, the Lord is obliged to look after and rescue a cursed pus::tijı¯va. Such a curse is, ultimately, only for the betterment of the pus::tijı¯va 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 (uddha¯ra), even if the jı¯vas are pus::timis´ra, of mixed pus::ti char- acter. Purus:ottama glosses sá¯stram as sá¯pada¯panam, (causing a curse to be conferred; cp. Maha¯na¯rayan:¯ıya Up. 1.5, Nr:sim: hata¯panı¯ya Up. 5.8). Regardless of the source or power of the curse, pus::tijı¯vas 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 Pa¯rvatı¯’s curse of Citraketu (BhP 6.14–17) and the curse placed on the sons of Kubera by Na¯rada (BhP 10.10). Citraketu was a semidivine king of the Vidya¯dharas, 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 (vima¯na), and came upon Síva and Pa¯rvatı¯ sitting in their eternal embrace atop the Kaila¯sá mountain, surrounded by their legions of divine and semidivine devotees. Citraketu laughed derisively at the sight, insulting Pa¯rvatı¯, 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: pa¯pı¯yası¯m: yonim a¯surı¯m: ya¯hi durmate | yatheha bhu¯yo mahata¯m: na karta¯ putra kilbis:am k BhP 6.17.15). Citraketu immediately became apologetic. His contrition, together with conciliatory words from Síva, pacified Pa¯rvatı¯. 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 Da¯nu (jajñe tvas::tur daks:in: a¯gnau da¯navı¯m: yonim a¯s´ritya | vr:tra uty abhivikhya¯to jña¯navijña¯nasam: 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 Bha¯gavata theology, as a demon of great power he was also a great devotee and was liberated by Vis:n: u. In the second story, Nalaku¯bara and Man: igrı¯va, the two sons of the yaks:a king Kubera, the god of wealth, were drunk on wine (madira¯mattau, BhP 10.10.7), chasing girls (albeit celestial maidens), and bathing naked in the Man: d: a¯kinı¯, a major tributary of the Ganga_ ¯ in the Hima¯layas (which originates at the sacred site Keda¯rana¯tha), when the divine enforcer Na¯rada happened by and noticed their disreputable conduct. Because of their selfish and slovenly behavior, Na¯rada cursed them to become trees. Immediately they were transformed into twin arjuna trees 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 211

(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: a emphasized to them that the curse was for their own good, for the sake of bestowing grace upon them (anugraha¯rtha¯ya sá¯pam, BhP 10.10.7). Because the two boys were liberated from their confinement by Kr:s:n: a himself, Vallabha¯ca¯rya and the Pus::tima¯rga tradition regarded them as pus::tijı¯vas whose natural state of devotion was worthy of the Lord’s direct intervention. These and other similar stories demonstrate that pus::tijı¯vas 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::tijı¯vas. Thus, the commentators point out that all three primary paths—pus::ti, prava¯ha, and marya¯da¯—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 Maha¯bha¯r- ata), which will serve to re-establish the balance of the paths. Regardless, because they have the Lord looking after them, pus::tijı¯vas, even if mixed, say the commentators, 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 (pra¯rabdha- karma). Verses 20–21b bhagavatta¯ratamyena ta¯ratamyam: bhajanti hi | vaidikatvam: laukikatvam: ka¯pat:ya¯t tes:una¯nyatha¯ k20k vais:n: avatvam: hi sahajam: tato ’nyatra viparyayah: | In accordance with the requirements of Lord’s hierarchical creation, (cursed or mixed pus::tijı¯vas) experience lower or higher (life situations and fruits). Both Vedic rules and lifestyles and those current in society (are perforce observed among pus::tijı¯vas), regardless of whether an apparent disjunction (ka¯pat: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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s previous line of thought, that pus::tijı¯vas, whether mixed (as most are) or pure (very few, a category that rarely extends beyond the archetypal sva¯minı¯sorgopı¯ka¯s of the tenth skandha of the BhP), may also perform Vedic sacrifices (as did Vallabha¯ca¯rya and many of his descendants) or be deeply engaged in worldly activities and sufferings (laukikatvam). The word vaidikatvam is understood by the commentators (here and in all of Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s works) to mean varn: a¯s´ramadharma, following of the codices of the classical Hindu lawbooks with respect to normative behavior prescribed for caste and stage of life. Nevertheless, as pus::tibhaktas 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 commentators on Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s work as an initiated disciple in the Pus::tima¯rga. Gokulana¯tha confirm corroborates this, stating: vais:n: avatvam: na¯ma pus::timarya¯da¯- ma¯rgapravartaka¯ca¯ryopadesápu¯rvakam: , that being a Vais:n: ava is predicated on the

123 212 F. M. Smith teachings of the a¯ca¯ryas who promulgate the paths of pus::ti and marya¯da¯. Purus:ottama explains vais:n: avatvam as bhagavada¯jña¯ka¯ritvam, following the com- mandments of the Lord. On the ablative ka¯pat:ya¯t (20d), the commentators have varied opinions. Gokulana¯tha glosses ka¯pat:ya as lokasangraha_ , a comparatively sanguine term indicating simply engagement with the world. Raghuna¯tha glosses it as ajña¯na, ignorance. Kalya¯nara¯ya explains it as attachment to possessions in the world, while Purus:ottama explains it as antarbahirvisam: va¯dah: , 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:ottama cites the kratunya¯ya, that akin to the intention (sam: kalpa) stated at the commencement of a sacrifice, a pus::tijı¯va, 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::tima¯rga lifestyle, related to me by Gosva¯mı¯ Devakı¯nandana¯ca¯rya 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::tibhakta is destined to overcome such obstacles if he or she maintains humility in the face of such obstacles. Verses 21c–23b sambandhinas tu ye jı¯va¯h: prava¯hastha¯s tatha¯ ’pare k21k cars:a¯n:¯ısábdava¯cya¯s te te sarve sarvavartmasu | ks:an: a¯t sarvatvam a¯ya¯nti rucis tes:a¯m: na kutracit k22k tes:a¯m: kriya¯nusa¯ren: a sarvatra sakalam: phalam: | Besides all of these, there is another category of jı¯vas established on the prava¯ha 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya speaks of them so succinctly, illustrating the openness and fluidity of devotional movements in the early sixteenth century. Purus:ottama derives cars:an:¯ı from Rcr:s:, a verbal root with the meanings prajanana and sva¯tantrya, 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 adhika¯ra of their own. Although their fate is to remain in sam: sa¯ra, it is slightly better than other prava¯hins 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, Vallabha¯ca¯rya, Harida¯s, and others in Braj at the time. Purus:ottama cites a passage from the Brahmasu¯tras that discusses the fate of those

54 This verbal root is not otherwise attested. I am unable to locate it in the available Dha¯tupa¯t:has. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 213 who are neither devotees nor engaged in sacrificial ritual. BS 3.1.14 reads: sam: yamane tv anubhu¯yetares:a¯ma¯roha¯varohau tadgatidarsána¯t; ‘‘As for others who have experienced 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: sa¯ra). 55 Purus:ottama also cites the Taittarı¯ya A¯ ran: yaka 6.5: vaivasvate vivicyante yame ra¯jani te jana¯h: | ye ceha satyenecchante ya u ca¯nr:tava¯dinah: k; ‘‘Men who speak truth and who speak untruth are separated by king Yama, son of Vivasvant’’ (trans. by Kashikar 1964.II: 494; Bha¯radva¯ja-Pitr:medhasu¯tra 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 Taittirı¯ya school.57 The word cars:an:¯ı appears in BhP 10.26.2, at the outset of the rasapañca¯dhya¯ya section, the five chapters that describe Kr:s:n: a’s ‘‘circle dance’’ with the sva¯minis or gopı¯ka¯s. (The edition Vallabha¯ca¯rya was working with had three fewer chapters, thus this verse corresponds to 10.29.2 in the edition normally used.) The verse reads: tadod: ura¯jah: kakubhah: karair mukham: pra¯cya¯ vilimpann arun: ena sám: tamaih: |sa cars:an:¯ına¯m: udaga¯c chuco mr:jan priyah: priya¯ya¯ iva dı¯rghadarsánah: 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:¯ına¯m), 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya and translated it as ‘‘wandering wayward women,’’ in part because of its feminine gender and in part because the sva¯minı¯s 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, Vallabha¯ca¯rya writes cars:an: yah: sarvatra paribh- raman: asáktayah: , ‘‘the cars:an:¯ıs are the sáktis that have wandered about everywhere.’’ To translate Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s word sákti here as simply ‘‘powers,’’ as Redington and Ramanan do (see note 58 below), makes no contextual sense and misses Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s point. The word sákti here was surely used in its conventional

55 Vallabha¯ca¯rya and his descendants, including Purus:ottama, were learned brahmans descended from a family of Vedic ritualists belonging to the Taittirı¯ya sá¯kha¯ 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 Bha¯radva¯ja Pitr:medhasu¯tra, which is virtually identical with the ritual performed by the family of Vallabha¯ca¯rya, who were followers of the A¯ pastamba ritual sub-school of the Taittirı¯ya sá¯kha¯. 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:¯-powers’’ı (1983; p. 51). 123 214 F. M. Smith sense of ‘‘consort.’’ Even if the sva¯minı¯s 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya that they were pus::tibhaktas of the highest level, rather than star-crossed spiritual wanderers. Verses 23c–25b prava¯hastha¯n pravaks:a¯mi svaru¯pa¯ngakriya_ ¯yuta¯n k23k jı¯va¯stehya¯sura¯h: sarve pravr:ttim: ceti varn: ita¯h: | te ca dvidha¯ prakı¯rtyate hy ajñadurjñavibhedatah: k24k durjña¯s te bhagavatprokta¯ hy ajña¯sta¯n anu ye punah: | I will now explain the position of prava¯ha jı¯vas in relation to the forms, limbs, and functions (of the Lord). All such demonic personalities (a¯sura jı¯vas) are described (in Bhagavad-Gı¯ta¯ 16.7) as not even having the ability to distinguish the path of quietude (nivr:tti) from the path of action (pravr:tti). These (prava¯hı¯ jı¯vas) 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 jı¯vas, 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 (a¯sura) individuals. Gokulana¯tha 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¯ daivajı¯ves:v api kecana pan: d: ita¯h: kecana na | tadvat kecana a¯sures:v api durjña¯h: kecana¯jn: a¯h: |). These individuals are somewhat akin to the cars:an:¯ı jı¯vas on the spiritual path. They are both prava¯hinsin 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 a¯sura jı¯vas, a category that includes demons (or their offspring) are granted moks:a, notably the demons Bali, Prahla¯da, Ba¯n: a¯sura, and Vr:tra. Purus:ottama notes that this is sometimes possible atter they have abandoned their enmity towards the Lord (kvacid dves:atya¯ge ’pi mucyante). These demons have committed grave offenses in previous births. They commit transgressions against the Lord (bhagavadapara¯dha) and against the devotees of the Lord (bhakta¯para¯dha), 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 prava¯ha jı¯vas; thus they can at most achieve moks:a, not a permanent place in the Lord’s lı¯la¯ (nityalı¯la¯). The verse in the BhG to which Vallabha¯ca¯rya refers in 24ab, reads: pravr:ttim: ca nivr:ttim: ca jana¯ na vidyur a¯sura¯h: |nasáucam: na¯pi ca¯ca¯ro 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 prava¯he ’pi sama¯gatya pus::tisthas tair na yujyate k25k so ’pi tais tatkule ja¯tah: karman: a¯ ja¯yate yatah: k26k 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 215

One who is established on the pus::ti path, however, cannot actually join the prava¯ha path, even if he or she associates with people on the prava¯ha path. This is the case even if a pus::tijı¯va is born into a (prava¯ha) family as a result of action (from a previous birth). Purus:ottama states that the action or karma that leads a pus::tijı¯va into a prava¯hı¯ womb may be any of the four offenses mentioned above (bhagavadapara¯dha, bhakta¯para¯dha, vedaninda¯, adharmakaran: am). The va¯sana¯s or subtle substantial remnants of these actions (as well as of positive actions) remain in the subtle body of the jı¯va, which the Lord subsequently removes by forcing the jı¯va to atone for the offense. The well-known case of Aja¯mila (BhP 6.1–2, see above on verse 6), who committed several of these transgressions, is once again cited (tatha¯ ca tatkar- mava¯sanaya¯ ta¯dr:kkriya¯karan: e ’pi jı¯vasya pus::tisthatva¯d bhagavata¯ tatkarma niva¯rya phalam: dı¯yate yatha¯ja¯milasya ato na dos:a iti bha¯vah: ). Purus:ottama mentions once again that the text is broken here, that more details about marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha jı¯vas, including their aims, spiritual practices, rituals, and fruits of their actions, were provided by Vallabha¯ca¯rya in an earlier version of the text that is now lost (etad agre prava¯hama¯rgı¯yaprayojanasa¯dhana¯ngakriya_ ¯phala¯ni marya¯da¯ma¯rgı¯yaprayojanasvaru¯pa¯ngakriya_ ¯h: sa¯dhanan: phalam: ca ya¯vata¯ jña¯yate ta¯va¯n grantho ’peks:ita iti jñeyam). Colophon iti s´rı¯vallabha¯ca¯ryaviracitah: pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯dabhedah: sama¯ptah: | Thus ends the Pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯da¯bheda, composed by S´rı¯ Vallabha¯ca¯rya.

Summary

At this point it will help clarify matters by reproducing the chart of bhakta categories and subtypes presented by Gosva¯mı¯S´ya¯m Manohar in his Hindi introduction to the text of the PPM. Gosva¯mı¯S´ya¯m offers three possible arrangements:

123 216 F. M. Smith

All three possible arrangements fall under the general category of jı¯va or embodied living individual, at the top of each chart. The first possible arrangement (prathama sambha¯vita vargı¯karan: a) is divided into two major categories: divine (daivı¯) and demonic (a¯surı¯). Those in the category of daivı¯ are divided into those whose path is administered by divine forces (ma¯rga¯dhikr:ta) and those who are not, namely the spiritual wanderers (cars:an:¯ı jı¯vas). The latter have no further subgrouping in this arrangement. The former, those who are ma¯rga¯dhikr:ta, entitled to a place on a legitimate path, are divided into two subgroups, those who are on the pus::ti path and those who fall on the marya¯da¯ path. The pus::tijı¯vas are divided into pure (súddha) and mixed (mis´ra). The mis´rajı¯vas are further subdivided into the three categories called pus::tipus::ti, marya¯da¯pus::ti and prava¯hapus::ti. Similarly, the major category of marya¯da¯ jı¯vas are subdivided into pus::timarya¯da¯, marya¯da¯marya¯da¯, and prava¯hamarya¯da¯, subcategories that Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m suspects that Vallabha¯ca¯rya explained in parts of the text that are now missing. The a¯surı¯ or demonic jı¯vas are divided into cars:an:¯ı jı¯vas, who fall outside the main categories because their affiliation is constantly shifting, and those who are administered within a primary category. We must assume this because they are labeled ma¯rga¯dhikr:ta. Although Gosva¯mı¯ does not state this explicitly here, he surely intends the ma¯rga here to be the primary category of prava¯ha jı¯vas. 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 (dvitı¯ya sambha¯vita vargı¯karan: a) is more straightforward, symmetrical, and obvious than the first arrangement. It contains the three major categories of the title, pus::ti, marya¯da¯, and prava¯ha, as the primary divisions of jı¯va¯. The category pus::ti is arrayed identically to its appearance in the 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 217

first arrangement, which is to say with immediate subcategories of súddha and mis´ra, then under the subcategory of mis´rajı¯va are further subdivisions consisting of pus::tipus::ti, marya¯da¯pus::ti and prava¯hapus::tijı¯vas. The major category of marya¯da¯ jı¯va includes under it subcategories of pus::timarya¯da¯, marya¯da¯marya¯da¯ and prava¯hamarya¯da¯, as is found in the first arrangement. What is dropped from this arrangement are the two major categories of daivı¯ and a¯surı¯, the latter replaced by the major category of prava¯ha jı¯va, which is then subdivided into pus::tiprava¯ha, marya¯da¯prava¯ha and prava¯haprava¯ha jı¯vas. The floating category of cars:an:¯ı jı¯va and its subtypes consisting of ajña and durjña jı¯vas has also been dropped. Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m’s third possible arrangement (tr:tı¯ya sambha¯vita vargı¯karan: a) replicates location and hierarchical structure of the pus::tijı¯va category, extending it symmetrically to the categories of marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha jı¯vas. Thus, the categories of marya¯da¯ jı¯va and prava¯ha jı¯va are, like the category of pus::tijı¯va, primary, with no intercession of the categories of daivı¯ jı¯va and a¯surı¯ jı¯va, as found in the first arrangement. And, like the representation of pus::tijı¯va in the first and second arrangements, the categories of marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha jı¯vas are subdivided into súddha and mis´ra. Thus, there are pure and mixed marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha jı¯vas. The categories of pure marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha jı¯vas, like that of pus::tijı¯vas are of course not subdivided further; it is impossible for this category to be split into more specified divisions. The categories of mixed (mis´ra) marya¯da¯ and prava¯ha jı¯vas are identical with the subcategories in the second arrangement, namely pus::timarya¯da¯, marya¯da¯marya¯da¯ and prava¯hamarya¯da¯ under the category of mis´ra marya¯da¯, while pus::tiprava¯ha, marya¯da¯prava¯ha and prava¯haprava¯ha jı¯vas are found under the category of mis´ra prava¯ha. Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m, the best known and most widely published commentator on Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s work since about 1970, has in common with Purus:ottama and other Pus::tima¯rgı¯ commentators the conviction that part of the text of the PPM is missing, as has been explained above. Indeed, Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m’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 Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m and his predecessors in Pus::tima¯rgı¯ commentarial writing uniformly sought an elegance and symmetry of explanation that Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s writing. We have seen above that it is recorded in the writing of Madhva, several centuries before Vallabha¯ca¯rya. 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 Pura¯n: 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, 123 218 F. M. Smith

59 including in the first millennium Pura¯n: as and the Buddhist Ja¯taka stories. Yet prophecy, such as that found in the Maha¯bha¯rata, 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 Ra¯ma¯nuja 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: ka¯ra texts, which helped catalyze heroic or notably infamous or destructive events (and paradigmatic tales) into desired moods, especially those bearing on devotional sentiment. What can be mentioned is that the S´rı¯vais:n: ava and Ma¯dhva theologies also contain tripartite divisions. These divisions are not identical with Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s, nor does Vallabha¯ca¯rya credit them as his influences, even if it appears that they are. In short, these schools, as well as certain Sáiva schools, agree that Bhagava¯n or I¯s´vara is responsible for the creation of jı¯vas. But none of them, so far as I am able to deter- mine, go to the extent that Vallabha¯ca¯rya does in stating that individuals belonging to one specific category of jı¯va 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. Ra¯ma¯nuja, in spite of his dvaita stance, states in the Veda¯arthasam: graha that all jı¯vas 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 S´rı¯rangagadyam_ ,a hymn that is cited throughout the S´rı¯vais:n: ava tradition (but may be [not mistakenly] misattributed to Ra¯ma¯nuja), where he declares that jı¯vas are of three types: nitya,

59 Buddhism and, especially, Jainism are insufficiently discussed with respect to their influence on bhakti traditions. Jainism influenced the Vallabha sam: prada¯ya 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 Mı¯tal (1968) (in Hindi). 60 For the Ra¯ma¯yan: a, see Satyavrat Sá¯strı¯ (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, Ra¯ma¯yan: a 6.6.7–8 reads: mantribhir hitasam: yuktaih: samarthair mantranirn: aye | mitrair va¯pi sama¯na¯rthair ba¯ndhavair api va¯ hitaih: || sahito mantrayitva¯ yah: karma¯rambha¯n pravartayet | daive ca kurute yatnam: tam a¯huh: 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 Ra¯ma¯yan: 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 S´rı¯vais:n: ava school operates much more fully within the realm of the doctrines of karma than does Vallabha¯ca¯rya; see Veda¯ntadesíka’s Nya¯yasiddha¯ñjanam, p. 215ff. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 219 those who are eternally free and never subject to the sam: sa¯ra; mukta, those who have been in sam: sa¯ra but are now liberated (have gained moks:a); and baddha, those who 62 are eternally bound in sam: sa¯ra. However, their status does not appear to be predestined and fixed, may be altered according to practice, unlike the doctrine found in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s PPM. Madhva’s hierarchy is somewhat different. Sarma explains jı¯vatraividhya as a threefold classification consisting of muktiyogya¯h: , those innately suited for liberation; nityabaddha¯h: , those who are eternally bound; and tamoyogya¯h: , those who are ‘‘destined to reside for eternity in Hell’’ (andhatamah: , blind darkness) (Sarma 2003, p. 77). Sarma also notes that Ra¯ma¯nuja and the Jainas propose such hierarchies (2003, p. 58). It strikes me that these categories are both more severe and not as nuanced as Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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 theorized 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 Ra¯ma¯nujam (1994, pp. 89–109). This brief text of Ra¯ma¯nuja is not unlike Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s brief treatises in tone and composition, except that the S´rı¯rangagadyam_ is in prose. Just as some of the texts of the S: od: aságrantha¯h: are known, studied, and recited within the Pus::tima¯rga community, this (and the other two gadya texts in Ra¯ma¯nujam 1994) are known and cited within the S´rı¯vais: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 Ra¯ma¯nuja 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s work, including, particularly, the Yamuna¯s::takam. 63 For the Dharmasá¯stra context see Rocher (1980), also Smith (2006, 514ff). (on the Madana- maha¯rn: 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 Pa¯n: d: u but was also an incarnation of Indra; hence, he was a great warrior. As´vattha¯man was a son of Dron: a, but was a partial incarnation of Síva; hence he was raudra, ferocious. Perhaps more germane, Hanuma¯n, cele- brated in the Ra¯ma¯yan: a as the archetypal devotee, was the son of the god of the Wind (Va¯yuputra). 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 (ma¯ya¯), and from there to the aks:arabrahman, from which point the creation begins anew. These jı¯vas, however, maintain their condition as prava¯hins and never reach the Lord. 123 220 F. M. Smith 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 consignment 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s writing and in some of the ensuing Pus::tima¯rga 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya does (it appears that the S´rı¯vais: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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s (although we have seen that the Ma¯dhva 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. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 221

Vais:n: ava thought. Vais:n: ava theologians often cite the story of Aja¯mila 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya, 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya (indeed, Islam is almost uniformly ignored in Vais:n: ava thought, except in a few negative references in the va¯rta¯ 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 vis´varu¯padarsána). All of this, then, is sufficient to grasp the outlines of predestination in Valla- bha¯ca¯rya’s thought. Vallabha¯ca¯rya, 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 unambiguously 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 67 of faith assumed by propagators of sectarian Vais:n: ava practice. 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 Pura¯n: as speak of creation as the work of demons as well as of God or gods. But we cannot elaborate this point here. 123 222 F. M. Smith 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), Vallabha¯ca¯rya states assuredly that Sáivas in the form of followers of Advaita Veda¯nta (ma¯ya¯va¯dins) 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 Pura¯n: ic narratives, but Vallabha¯ca¯rya, at least, does not refer to them in defining his position on predestination, except to cite chapter 16 of the Bhagavad-Gı¯ta¯, which states that some beings are demonic (a¯sura). Rather, he posits different, if in his view lower, states of liberation for those whose devotion lacks the intensity of those deemed tadı¯ya or bhagavadı¯ya, those who ‘‘belong to him.’’ Vallabha¯ca¯rya 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::tijı¯vas 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: aságrantha¯h: .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: sa¯ra for those who are not pu:s::tijı¯vas perhaps replaces this notion. This is verified in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya and Vit::thalana¯thajı¯ found in the Brajbha¯s:a¯ va¯rta¯ literature (T: am: d: an 1961). Nearly all of the figures in the va¯rta¯s are historicized exemplars whose devotion is resonant with the archetypes glorified in the BhP. It is important to mention that in practice most Pus::tima¯rgı¯s, 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::tima¯rgı¯s as well as by Christians, and are usually read as exhortations to sharpen one’s practice rather than as teleological fact. 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 223

It is also relevant to mention in this context Max Weber’s classic work, The Protestant 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 sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe in their reaction to Papal Catholicism, adherents of Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s Pus::tima¯rga were drawn preponderantly from the business classes, as they still are today. Thus, most Pus::tima¯rgı¯s have historically possessed a high degree of literacy (including in the intricacies of music; cf. Ho 2006). Indeed, a majority of Pus::tima¯rgı¯s have historically descended from middle class educated vais´ya families from Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Bombay. Of course, the Pus::tima¯rga 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::tima¯rga 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 Vallabha¯ca¯rya, who are not only the brahman inheritors of learned intellectual and devotional traditions, but who also retain the sole authority to grant initiation into 70 Pus::tima¯rga seva¯. One of the similarities that what we might here guardedly label 71 Protestant Vais:n: avism has with Protestant Christianity is a strong notion of predestination. As discussed above, one might argue that Vallabha¯ca¯rya is a double predestinarian because of the inevitability that some people are destined for salvation in the form of nirodha and nityalı¯la¯ while others are predestined for eternal residence in sam: sa¯ra, 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::tima¯rga (1993, 34). Several brahman castes as well as service castes are involved, but most Pus::tima¯rgı¯s are from Gujarati business communities (bania). 69 The classic work on this is Thomas (1977). I might also mention in passing the Jansenists of seventeenth 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- dha¯ntarahasya, the fifth in the S: od: aságrantha¯h: . On the Pus::tima¯rgı¯ distinction between pu¯ja¯ and seva¯, see Smith (2005a) and Bennett (1993, 74ff). 71 With a slight nod to the controversial designation Protestant Buddhism by Obeyesekere (1970) and Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988). That said, any further elaboration of Protestant Vais:n: avism must be reserved for future work. 123 224 F. M. Smith 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 Gosva¯mı¯ Devakı¯nandana¯ca¯rya of Gokul for his insights into this text when I ﬁrst read it in 1995, Shyamdas for many fruitful discussions of it, and P.J. Johnston for her many lucid comments on the topic of predestination.

Bibliography

Texts by Vallabha¯ca¯rya

All of Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s compositions, along with the commentaries on his work, were edited by Mu¯lacandra Tulası¯da¯sa Telı¯va¯la¯ (usually in collaboration with Dhairyala¯la Vrajada¯sa Sa¯m: kalı¯ya¯) 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 Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. The S: od: aságrantha¯h: (all originally edited by Teliva¯la¯ and Sa¯m: kalı¯ya¯ and published by the Nirnaya Sagara Press, Bombay, between 1921 and 1925), in their traditionally presented order: 1. Yamuna¯s::takam with six Sanskrit commentaries, Hindi translation and explanations, with an appendix of other Yamuna¯ stotras. Ed. by Kedarnath Mis´ra. Va¯ra¯n: ası¯: A¯ nanda Praka¯sán Sam: stha¯n. Sam: . 2037 (1980). 2. Ba¯labodha with three Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Mathura: Girdhar Niva¯s, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 3. Siddha¯ntamukta¯valı¯ with nine Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Kolhapur: S´rı¯ Vallabhavidya¯pı¯t:ha - S´rı¯vit::thalesáprabhucaran: a¯s´rama Trust, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 4. Pus::tiprava¯hamarya¯da¯bheda with four Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Baroda: Bait:hak Mandir, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 5. Siddha¯ntarahasya with eleven Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Gokul: Caturthapı¯t:ha, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 6. Navaratna with five Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Ka¯ma¯m: , Bharatpur: Pan˜camapı¯t:ha, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 7. Antah: karan: aprabodha with five Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Baroda: S´rı¯ Kalya¯n: ara¯yajı¯kı¯ Havelı¯, Sam. 2036 (1979). 8. Vivekadhairya¯s´raya with four Sanskrit commentaries Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Bombay, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 9. Kr:s:n: a¯s´rayastotram with six Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Surat: Mot:um: Mandir (S: as::thı¯pı¯t:ha), Sam: . 2036 (1979). 10. Catuh: s´lokı¯ with seven Sanskrit commentaries and Vit::thalesá’s appendix (parisís::tam) called S´rı¯vr:tra¯suracatuh: s´lokı¯ Vivr:tih: with three Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Bhules´var, Bombay: Bad: a¯ Mandir, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 11. Bhaktivardhinı¯ with fourteen Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Bhules´var, Bombay: Bad: a¯ Mandir, Sam: . 2036 (1979). 12. Jalabheda with four Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Mot:¯ı Havelı¯, Ma¯ndvı¯, Kacch: Sam: . 2037 (1980). 13. Pañcapadya¯ni with one Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Mot:¯ı Havelı¯, Ma¯ndvı¯, Kacch: Sam: . 2037 (1980).

72 Based on the evidence of the va¯rta¯ literature as well as on my own observations in present-day Pus::tima¯rga interaction in Braj and elsewhere, I must contend that adhika¯ra for the status of pus::tijı¯va is not based on caste in spite of the fact that the Vallabha kul is brahman and has a familial, institutional, and hierarchical interest in maintaining its status as undisputed leaders of the Pus::tima¯rga, and that until the twentieth century virtually all of the Sanskrit and Brajbha¯s:a¯ Pus::tima¯rga literature was composed by Sanskritically trained members of the ‘‘Vallabh kul’’ (M. T. Telivala was the most prominent exception to this in the early twentieth century). 123 Predestination and Hierarchy 225

14. Sam: nya¯sanirn: aya, with eight Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Mot:¯ı Havelı¯, Ma¯ndvı¯, Kacch: Sam: . 2037 (1980). 15. Nirodhalaks:an: am with six Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Kota, Rajas- than: S´rı¯maha¯prabhujı¯ka¯ Bad:a¯ Mandir, Sam: . 2037 (1980). 16. Seva¯phalam (inclouding Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s Vivaran: a) with fourteen Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Porbandar: Bha¯t:iya¯Ba¯ja¯r, Sam: . 2037 (1980).

Other Texts by Vallabha¯ca¯rya

S´rı¯mad-Brahmasu¯tra¯n: u˜bha¯s:ya of S´rı¯mad-Vallabha¯ca¯rya with the commentary Pradı¯pa of S´rı¯ Iccha¯ra¯ma Bhat::tajı¯ of Petlad. Ed. by Maganla¯l Gan: apatira¯m Sá¯strı¯. Ahmedabad: Súddha¯dvaita Sam: sad, 1980. Subodhinı¯:S´rı¯maccaturthaprastha¯nas´rı¯madbha¯gavatasá¯stradasámaskandhasubodhinya¯m: prathamajan- maprakaran: a¯dhya¯yacatus::tayı¯ with five Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Kolhapur: S´rı¯vallabhavidya¯pı¯t:ha-S´rı¯vit::thalesáprabhucaran: a¯s´rama Trust, Sam. 2046 (1989). Tattva¯rthadı¯panibandha (sapraka¯sáh: ): Bha¯gavata¯rthaprakaran: am. Ed. by Gosva¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Kolhapur: S´rı¯ Vallabhavidya¯pı¯t:ha-S´rı¯vit::thalesáprabhucaran: a¯s´rama Trust, Sam: . 2040 (1983), Sam: . 2042 (1985). Tattva¯rthadı¯panibandha (sapraka¯sáh: ): Sá¯stra¯rthasarvanirn: ayaru¯paprakaran: advayopetah: . Ed. by Gos- va¯mı¯Sýa¯m Manohar. Kolhapur: S´rı¯ Vallabhavidya¯pı¯t:ha-S´rı¯vit::thalesáprabhucaran: a¯s´rama Trust, Sam: . 2039 (1982).

Other Sanskrit Texts

Cha¯ndogya Upanis:ad, with the bha¯s:ya of Sánkara_ ¯ca¯rya and the: t¯ıka¯ of A¯nandagiri. Ed. by Ka¯s´¯naı ¯th 2 Sá¯strı¯A¯ ga¯sé: Pun: e: A¯ nanda¯s´rama Sanskrit Series, no. 14. 1934. Maha¯bha¯rata, Mausalaparvan. Critical edition, vol. 19. Ed. by S. K. Belvalkar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1959. Mı¯ma¯m: sa¯-darsánam: Mahars:i-Jaimini-pravartitasya vica¯rasa¯strasya sama¯locana¯tmakam adhya¯yanam. Ed. by Man: d: ana Mis´ra. New Delhi: La¯l Ba¯ha¯dur Sá¯stri Kendriya-Sam: skrta-Vidya¯pı¯t:ham, 1983. Nya¯yasiddha¯ñjanam.ByS´rı¯mad Veda¯ntadesíka, with the commentaries ‘‘Saralavisáda’’ by S´rı¯rangara_ ¯ma¯nujasva¯min and ‘‘Ratnapet:ika¯’’ by S´rı¯ka¯n˜cı¯kr:s:n: aTa¯ta¯ca¯rya. Ed. by S´rı¯niva¯sata¯tada¯sa (?). Madras: Ubhayaveda¯ntagranthama¯la¯, 1976. Prameyaratna¯rn: ava,byS´rı¯ba¯lakr:s:n: a (La¯lu¯) Bhat::ta. Ed. by Kedarna¯th Mis´ra. Va¯ra¯n: ası¯: A¯ nanda Praka¯sán, 1971. Ra¯ma¯yan: a. The Yuddhaka¯n: d: a — The Sixth Book of the Va¯lmı¯ki-Ra¯ma¯yan: a. Critically edited by P. L. Vaidya. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1971. R: gveda-Sam: hita¯ with the Commentary of Sa¯yan: a¯ca¯rya. Vols. 1–5. Ed. C. G. Kashikar and N. S. Son- takke. Poona: Vaidika Sam: sódhana Man: d: ala, 1933–1951. Taittirı¯yabra¯hman: am with the Bha¯s:ya of Sa¯yan: a¯ca¯rya. Vols. 1–3. Ed. by Na¯ra¯yan: aBa¯l: akr:s:n: a God: bol: e. A¯ nanda¯s´rama Sanskrit Series, no. 37. Pun: e: A¯ nanda¯s´rama, 1898. Vais:n: ava Upanis:ads with the commentary of S´rı¯ Upanis:ad Brahmayogin. Ed. by Pt. A. Mahadeva Sastri Madras: Adyar Library, 1979 [1923]. Vis:n: upura¯n: a (critical edition). Ed. by M. M. Pathak. Vadodara: Oriental Institute, 1997.

Secondary Sources

Barz, R. (1976). The bhakti sect of Vallabha¯ca¯rya. 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: as´agrantha¯h: . M. G. Shastri Sma¯raka-Ma¯la¯, No. 10. Carman, J. B. (1974). The theology of Ra¯ma¯nuja. An essay on interreligious understanding. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Caturvedı¯, S. (1967). Maha¯prabhu S´rı¯madvallabha¯ca¯rya aur Pus::tima¯rga. Varanasi: Hindı¯Sa¯hitya Kut:¯r.ı 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.

123 226 F. M. Smith

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 Ra¯ma¯yan: aofVa¯lmı¯ki: An epic of ancient India. Volume VI: Yuddhaka¯n: 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). S´rı¯mad Bha¯gavata Maha¯pura¯n: 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 Ra¯ga¯nuga¯ Bhakti Sa¯dhana. 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::tiMa¯rg of India—An embryonic form of the classical tradition. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Houben, J. E. M. (1991). The Pravargya Bra¯hman: a of the Taittirı¯ya A¯ ran: 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 Bha¯gavata-Pura¯n: a. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kane, P. V. (1974, 1975). [HDh] History of Dharmasá¯stra (Vol. 5, Part 1, Vol. V, Part 2). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kashikar, C. G. (1964). The S´rauta, Paitr:medhika and Parisés:aSu¯tras of Bharadva¯ja. (Part II). Poona: Vaidika Sams_ ódhana Man: d: ala. Kurata, H. (1980). Samyogapr:thaktvanya¯ya as a basis of the theory of moks:a. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Tokyo, 28(2), 13–18. Le´vi, 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 Maha¯bha¯rata. 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). Nı¯lakan::tha Caturdhara and the Genre of Mantrarahasyapraka¯síka¯. 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). Nı¯lakan::tha’s vedic readings in the Harivam: sá commentary. In P. Koskikallio (Ed.), Epics, khilas and pura¯n: as: Continuities and ruptures. Proceedings of the third Dubrovnik International conference on the Epics and pura¯n: as, September 2002 (pp. 411–433). Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Mı¯tal, P. (1968) (Sam: . 2025). Braj ke dharma-sam: prada¯yom: ka¯ itiha¯s. Delhi: National Publishing House. Mukhiya¯, G. (1997). (Sam: 2054). S: od: aságrantha, Hindı¯ anuva¯da 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). S´rı¯subodhinı¯. Commentary on Srimad Bha¯gavata Pura¯n: a by Maha¯prabhu Shri Vallabha¯cha¯rya. Text and english translation (Vol. VII). Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Ra¯ma¯nujam, V. V. (trans.) (1994). Gadyatrayam of Bhagavad Ra¯ma¯nuja (text in Sanskrit with the commentary of Periya Acca¯n Pil::lai). Milk Colony, Subramanyanagar, Bangalore: S´rı¯ Parampara¯ Sabha¯.

123 Predestination and Hierarchy 227

Redington, J. D. (2000). The grace of Lord Krishna: The sixteen verse-treatises [S: od: aságrantha¯h: ]of Vallabhacharya. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Redington, J. D. (1983). Vallabha¯ca¯rya on the love games of Kr:s:n: a. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Rocher, L. (1980). Karma and Rebirth in the Dharmasá¯stras. 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 Sá¯strı¯. (Ed.). (1963). Conception of daiva and purus:aka¯ra in the Va¯lmı¯ki and Va¯sis::tha Ra¯ma¯yanas. 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: nya¯sanirn: aya,aSúddha¯dvaita text on renunciation by Vallabha¯ca¯rya. Journal of Vais:n: ava Studies, 1(4), 135–156. Smith, F. M (1998). Nirodha and the Nirodhalaks:an: a of Vallabha¯ca¯rya. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 26(6), 589–651. Smith, F. M. (2005a). The hierarchy of philosophical systems according to Vallabha¯ca¯rya. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 33(4), 421–453. Smith, F. M (2005b). Vedic and devotional waters: The Jalabheda of Vallabha¯ca¯rya. 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 Va¯rta¯land: On the enterprise of history in early Pus::tima¯rga discourse. Journal of Hindu Studies, 2(1), 27–47. Stoker, V. (2000). The Hierarchy of deities in Madhva’s R: gbha¯s: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: gbha¯s: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). Va¯rta¯ sa¯hitya: Ek br:hat adhyayan. Aligarh: Bharat Prakashan Mandir. Telivala, M. T. (1980). Súddha¯dvaita Brahmava¯da: 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). Ra¯ma¯nuja’s Veda¯rthasam: graha. Deccan College Monograph Series: (Vol. 16). Poona: Deccan College. van Buitenen, J. A. B. (1964). The large a¯tman. 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