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:) commen- tary. The most important and authoritative commentary is by Purus:ottama, written about two centuries after the original text. The article contains a translation of the PPM with long extracts from the commentaries, particularly the one composed by Purus:ottama. After an introduction placing the PPM’s doctrine of the hierarchy of embodied souls (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 com- mentaries). The article concludes with reflections on the PPM’s doctrine of pre- destination, comparing it with those of other Indian religious sects and within the wider context of predestination in Western religions, where these discussions have been ongoing for more than 1500 years. An extensive bibliography is included at the end. Keywords Vallabha¯ca¯rya Á Pus::tima¯rga Á Predestination Á Hierarchies in Indian religion Á Pre-modern Sanskrit commentary Á 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 S´ankara_ ¯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: as´agrantha¯h: succinctly address many of the key issues in Vallabha¯ca¯rya’s devotional and philosophical systems, known as the pus::tima¯rga and s´uddha¯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 trans- lations 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.