Religions of South Asia 6.

2 (2011) 207-224
doi:10.1558/rosa.v6i2.207

ISSN (print) 1751-2689

ISSN (online) 1751-2697

Quotation in Early Modern Vednta:

An Example from Gauya Vaiavism
KIyoKazu oKIta1
Department of Indological Studies
Faculty of Letters, Kyoto university
yoshidahon-machi, Sakyo-ku
Kyoto, 606-8501
Japan
kiyokazu.okita@googlemail.com

aBStRaCt: a recent research project, Sanskrit Knowledge Systems on the Eve of

Colonialism, led by Sheldon Pollock, Christopher Minkowski and other leading
Sanskrit scholars, reveals that early modern India from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries witnessed one of the most productive periods in its intellectual
history. While this project explores eight disciplines (vykaraa, mms, nyya,
dharmastra, alakrastra, yurveda, jyoti, prayoga), it unfortunately excludes
Vednta as a scope of study. However, the cultural productivity in the area of
Vednta continued and was alive in the early modern period. A good example of this
can be observed in the works of Baladeva Vidybhaa (c. 17001793), a Vedntin
belonging to the Gauya Vaiava tradition. In this article, I analyse Baladevas
commentary on Brahmastras 2.1.21-25, paying attention to the ways in which
Baladeva quotes the writings of akara and Madhva. The complex engagements
with the earlier Vedntins in Baladevas writing shows, I believe, that the Vedntic
discourse was a part of the lourishing Sanskrit culture in the early modern period.
KEYWORDS: Baladeva; early modern; Vaiavism; Vednta.

INtRoDuCtIoN2
a recent research project, Sanskrit Knowledge Systems on the Eve of Colonialism, led by Sheldon Pollock, Christopher Minkowski and other leading
2

1. Kiyokazu okita is currently a JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) post-doctoral
research fellow at the Department of Indological Studies, Kyoto University. He obtained his
DPhil from the Faculty of Theology, University of Oxford. His doctoral thesis focuses on
the philosophy of an eighteenth-century Gauya Vaiava author, Baladeva Vidybhaa,
and its relation to other Vedntic schools. His latest research examines the aesthetic aspect
of the Gauya tradition, focusing on the Rasa theory according to Rpa Gosvm in the
sixteenth century.
2. this article is developed from a section in my doctoral thesis (okita 2011). I would like to
Equinox Publishing ltd 2012, Unit S3, Kelham House, 3 lancaster Street, Sheield, S3 8AF.

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

208

Sanskrit scholars,3 reveals that early modern India from the sixteenth to
the eighteenth centuries witnessed one of the most productive periods in
its intellectual history. Pollock (2002: 435) points out, however, that, while
this new vitality is everywhere evidentit has hardly been recognized in the
scholarship, let alone explained. yet, while this project itself explores eight
disciplines namely vykaraa, mms, nyya, dharmastra, alakrastra,
yurveda, jyoti and prayoga, Vednta is conspicuous by its absence. In this
article I argue that the Sanskrit literature in the area of the Vedntic discourse should also be seen as part of the early modern periods lourishing
cultural productivity.4
As evidence for the lively state of Vednta in the sixteenth century, it
suices to point out the Nyyamta written by Vysatrtha (14781539),
the Prince of Dialecticians of the Dvaita school (Sharma 1994: viii), and its
advaita refutation called Advaitasiddhi, written by Madhusdhana Sarasvat
(sixteenth ce), whom the tradition regards as the culmination of the advaita
school.5 This cultural productivity in the area of Vednta continued and was
alive in the eighteenth century. a good example of this can be observed in
the works of Baladeva Vidybhaa (c. 17001793), a Vedntin belonging
to the Gauya Vaiava tradition. In his youth, he was trained in the school
of Madhva (12381317) (Sharma 2000: 79). As a Mdhva Vedntin, he possessed a thorough knowledge of the Vednta schools of akara (c. 700 ad)
(Suthren Hirst 2005: 1)6 and Rmnuja (trad. 10171137) (narasimhachary

3.
4.

5.
6.

acknowledge the generous support given by my thesis supervisor Professor Gavin Flood
(University of Oxford). I also thank Dr Jacqueline Suthren Hirst (University of Manchester)
and Dr Dermot Killingley (university of Newcastle) for reviewing this section as my thesis
examiners. I am equally grateful to Professor Dr Harunaga Isaacson (Universitt Hamburg)
and to Dr Kengo Harimoto (Universitt Hamburg), with whom I translated most of the
Sanskrit texts cited in this article. a version of this article was read at the Indology Graduate
Seminar at Kyoto university on 14 June 2011. I thank Professor yuko yokochi (Kyoto university), Professor Diwakar acharya (Kyoto university) and Dr Bill Mak (Kyoto university)
for their valuable comments on my presentation, some of which are relected in this article.
For more information on the project, see http://dsal.uchicago.edu/sanskrit/index.html
Whether the history of South asia from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century should
be termed late medieval or early modern is problematic. In fact through recent scholarship there has been a great shift in our understanding of eighteenth-century India (cf.
Alavi 2002; Marshall 2003), which has led scholars to question the very adequacy of dividing
Medieval from Modern. For example, Washbrook (2006: 212) writes, Recent revisionist
interpretations of Indian economic history have gone a long way towards breaking down
the distinctiveness of the colonial relationship, and re-situating India in a continuous
context of global history stretching from the late medieval period to today. Nonetheless,
since this article is in dialogue with the project led by Pollock, who terms this period Early
Modern (cf. Pollock 2002, 2004, 2011), I am adopting his terminology.
I am grateful to Professor Diwakar acharya for informing me of this point concerning the
traditional view on Madhusdhana Sarasvat (28 June 2011). For more elaborate discussions
on Vysatrtha and Madhusdhana, see Sharma (1994), Gupta (2006).
Harimoto (2006: 85) suggests the production of akaras commentary on the Brahmastras
(BraS) as being dated between 756772 ce.

Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

209

2004: 9), as well as of Madhvas criticism of these two schools. after Baladevas
initial training, however, while he was travelling as a Mdhva sannys, he met
Rdhdmodara, a learned Gauya Vaiava in Pur. With him as a teacher,
Baladeva studied the Bhgavatasandarbhas of Jva Gosvm (1517 terminus
ad quem, 1608 terminus a quo) (Gupta 2007: 1011), the founding father of
Gauya theology. This led Baladeva to his eventual conversion to the Gauya
tradition.7
From this brief sketch of Baladevas intellectual journey, we can anticipate the eclectic nature of his writings. the adjective eclectic, however, has
various shades of meaning. In the ancient usage, it described a class of philosophers who did not belong to any particular school but who chose their beliefs
from various schools as they pleased. In contrast to this usage, eclectic can
also describe the state of being broad, borrowing from diverse sources. In this
article, I use the term in the second sense to describe the nature of Baladevas
Vednta. In other words, although in Baladevas writings, he borrowed extensively from many sources, I argue that he was not an eclectic in the irst sense
of the term since he was committed to the Gauya tradition.8 My view on this
point, therefore, is that he skilfully used the arguments from other schools to
strengthen the position of his own tradition.
In what follows, I examine the Govindabhya (GoBh), Baladevas commentary on the Brahmastras (BraS), focusing on the section 2.1.21-259 in
which Baladeva discusses the distinction between Brahman and the living
entity, using the writings of akara and Madhva. However, by referring to
a doctrine unique to the Gauya tradition, Baladeva makes it clear that he
is using other schools arguments in the service of the Gauya school. In
order to understand Baladevas complex engagements with his predecessors,
I will focus on various ways in which he quotes already existing traditions.
In this analysis I categorize Baladevas quotations into three patterns: (1)
when he cites from the rutis and the smtis; (2) when he quotes a previous
Vedntin in a way which is diferent from the original authors application;
(3) when he copies a previous Vedntin following the original authors use.
this evidence of Baladevas engagement with other schools thus suggests
that the discipline of Vednta was a part of the lourishing Sanskritic culture
in early modern India.

7. For more detailed accounts of Baladevas life, see Buchta (2004, 2007); Burton (2000); Elkman
(1986: 2529); narang (1984: 17); Wright and Wright (1993: 15872).
8. See Buchta (2005); okita (2008 and 2009).
9. These ive stras are:
BraS 2.1.21. itaravyapaded dhitkaradidoaprasakti //
BraS 2.1.22. adhika tu bhedanirdet //
BraS 2.1.23. amdivac ca tadanupapatti //
BraS 2.1.24. upasahradarann neti cen na kravad dhi //
BraS 2.1.25. devdivad iti loke //
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

210

HISTORICAl BACKGROUnD
Before entering into a detailed examination of Baladevas Govindabhya, a
brief sketch of its historical background is in order. neither Ka Caitanya
(14861534) (Gupta 2007: 3), the inaugurator of the Gauya tradition, nor
Jva wrote a commentary on the Brahmastras. According to Kadsa
Kavirjas Caitanyacaritmta, a hagiographical account of Caitanyas life,
Caitanya taught that the Bhgavata Pura (BhPu) was the best commentary on the Brahmastras, and there was therefore no need to produce a
separate commentary. Following this teaching, no Gauya author prior to
Baladeva wrote a full commentary on the Brahmastras. In addition, the
Gauyas developed a unique epistemological stance wherein they considered the Bhgavata Pura the highest source of knowledge concerning
Brahman.10 However, this exclusive focus on the Bhgavata Pura and the
consequent absence of its own Brahmastra commentary became problematic in eighteenth-century north India, particularly in Jaipur, which
was under the reign of Jaisingh II. In the sixteenth century, Jva Gosvm
had successfully established the systematic theology of the Gauya line
through his Bhgavatasandarbhas. However, his system was primarily based
on the Bhgavata Pura and the Viu Pura (ViPu), another important
Vaiava Pura. although Caitanya did not emphasize the Viu Pura
as much as the Bhgavata Pura, it exercised signiicant inluence on the
writings of Jva. However, those outside the Gauya tradition did not necessarily consider these Puras to be as authoritative as the prasthnatray
texts.11 Baladevas task, then, was to provide a more explicitly Vedntic
foundation to Jvas theology by writing a full Gauya commentary on the
Brahmastras.
On BraS 2.1.21-25
Baladevas commentary on BraS 2.1.21-25 relects the complex historical
background described just above. In this section Baladeva attempts to establish Brahman as the instrumental cause (nimittakraa) of the universe. In
the process he uses the writings of the preceding Vedntins (i.e. akara,
Rmnuja, Madhva) whenever they are useful for establishing Jvas Gauya
theology as properly Vedntin.
according to Baladeva, the topic of discussion (viaya) in BraS 2.1.21-25
concerns two ruti passages that seemingly contradict each other. These two
passages read as follows:

10. See Buchta (2006) for a detailed discussion on this topic.

11. the Upaniads, the Bhagavadgt, and the Brahmastras.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

211

the Lord is the creator [of the universe].12

Beings arise from the living entity.13

The irst quotation suggests that the lord (a) is the creator, whereas the
second seems to suggest that the living beings arise from another living
entity (jva). the prima facie view argues that the living entity is the creator of
the universe since if the Lord were the creator of the world it would go against
his completeness (prat).14 In other words, if the Lord is truly complete then
there would be nothing for him to accomplish, and therefore there would be
no need for him to engage in any act of creation.
Commenting on stra 2.1.21 (itaravyapaded dhitkaradidoaprasakti //),
Baladeva rejects the prima facie view:
Some people {itara} teach {vyapadea} the living entity as the creator. or some
people accept the teaching {vyapadea} that the living entity {itara} is the creator
of the universe. on account of [such teaching], if the living entity were its [i.e. the
worlds] creator, the wise people who have such a view [must face] an unwanted
consequence {prasakti} of defects {doa} such as {di} the living entity not doing
what is beneicial [for himself]{hitkaraa}.15

as far as this stra is concerned, there are no signiicant interpretive diferences between akara, Rmnuja, Madhva and Baladeva. If the living entity
were the creator of the universe, Baladeva says, it would lead to two kinds
of defects. First, the living entity would be doing what is not beneicial for

12. Muaka Upaniad 3.1.3: kartram am []. In translation, the content of a square bracket
[abc] indicates what I supply and the content of a curly bracket {abc} indicates the Sanskrit
words the commentators are commenting on. When an author cites only a part of a text,
and when I translate the rest of the text which is referred to by the author but not cited, my
translation of such part of the text is put into a round bracket (abc).
13. GoBh 2.1.21: jvd bhavanti bhtni itydiruter []. This is an unidentiied citation which
Baladeva attributes to a ruti text. Baladeva quotes the same verse in GoBh 1.4.28, again
without identiication:
jvd bhavanti bhtni jve tihanty acacal /
jve ca layam icchanti na jvt kraa param //
So far I have not been able to trace this verse in Madhvas writings either.
the text of the GoBh is reconstructed based on the editions of Kadsa (Baladeva 1953)
and of Bhaktirrpasiddhnti Gosvmi (Baladeva 1968). When I ind signiicant variants,
I record them with positive critical apparatus. this means I record both readings. In the
apparatus, the readings in Baladeva 1953 is recorded as M, the ones in Baladeva 1968 is
recorded as K. In the process of reconstructing the texts cited in this article, I occasionally
employ emendation, which is indicated by the abbreviation em..
14. GoBh 2.1.21: tatrevarasya tatkarttve pratdivirodhpatter jvasyaiva tad iti vadanti /
15. GoBh 2.1.21: itare kecit yo jvakarttvavyapadea itarasya v jvasya yo jagatkarttvavyapadea parai kaicit svktas tasmt itaravyapadein vidu tatkartari jve hitkaradn
do prasakti syt /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

212

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

himself. Second, the living entity would have to accept charges against him,
such as experiencing fatigue in the act of creation.16
Baladeva explains the irst type of defect: For no wise person who is independent would create his own prison house and enter into it like a silkworm.
Nor would any clean person obtain a physical body which is low and unclean.17
In the Indian cultural context this world of transmigration (sasra) is seen
as a cosmic prison house for the living entities. Similarly, the physical body
is seen as a microcosmic prison for a soul. If that is the case, why would any
living entity wish to create the world or a physical body only to be trapped
in those prison houses? the analogy of a prison house and the example of
accepting a physical body are copied from akaras commentary on the
same stra.18 akara, however, uses these arguments to describe the prima
facie view, according to which the creatorship of Brahman is untenable. this is
an example of the second type of citation in which Baladeva adapts the analogies used in akaras prima facie view but creatively reuses them as a part of
his own conclusion (siddhnta).19
then Baladeva explains the second defect of the prima facie view: Nor is
any living entity able to accomplish the efects [of the material creation] such
as pradhna, mahat, ego, space, air, and so on, since he experiences fatigue
even by the thought of it [i.e. the thought of creating such materials].20
If a mere thought of creation fatigues the living entity, how would it be
possible for him to actually create the universe? It might be the case that
Baladeva took inspiration for this argument from Madhva. Commenting on
the next stra, Madhva says the fault of experiencing fatigue does not apply
to Brahman because it possesses excellent potencies (adhikaakti).21 one of
the implications of this statement would be what Baladeva said just above,
namely if the living entity were the creator of the universe, it would experience fatigue since it does not possess excellent potencies like Brahman does.
If we acknowledge Madhvas inluence on Baladeva on this point, this might
be seen as an example of the third type of quotation in which Baladeva uses
the idea of his predecessor in accordance with the original authors own
application.

16. GoBh 2.1.21: hitkaraam ahitakaraa ramdika ca daa prpnuyt /

17. GoBh 2.1.21: na hi kacit svdhno dhmn svasya bandhangra nirmima kaueyakavat
tatra praviet / na v svaya svaccha sannatyanaccha vapur apeyt /
18. BraSBh (a) 2.1.21: ata sa svatantra kart san hitam evtmana saumanasyakara kuryn
nhita janmamaraajarrogdyaneknarthajlam / nahi kacid aparatantro bandhangram
tmana ktvnupraviati / na ca svayam atyantanirmala sannatyantamalina deham tmatvenopeyt /
19. neither Rmnuja nor Madhva uses akaras analogy and example in their commentaries
on the same stra.
20. GoBh 2.1.21: na ca kenacit jvena sdhyam ida pradhnamahadahaviyat-pavandikryam /
taccintaypi ramnubhavt /
21. BraSBh (Ma) 2.1.22: na ca brahmaa ramacintdidoaprpti / adhikaaktitvt /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

213

In Baladevas commentary on the next stra, the opponent comes back

and argues that these two defects would equally apply to Brahman: Surely,
Brahman also sufers fatigue, does not do what is beneicial [for itself] and so
on.22 Creation must be stressful for Brahman. In addition, there are scriptural
statements describing the entrance of Brahman into its creation. If Brahman
is the creator, why does it enter into the prison house of this world?
Commenting on BraS 2.1.22 (adhika tu bhedanirdet //), Baladeva replies
that these two defects do not apply to Brahman because of its superiority:
the word tu is for the sake of cutting of the doubt. Brahman is exceedingly
superior {adhikam} to the living entity due to [its] being the possessor of excellent potencies. How is it [so]? [It is so] since the scriptures describe the diference
[between Brahman and the living entity]{bhedanirdet} exactly the same way.23

Exegetically, Baladevas interpretation of the stra is a mixture of the interpretations ofered by his three predecessors. Both akara and Rmnuja
explain that Brahman is superior (adhikam) to the living entity because of the
teaching of diference between Brahman and the living entity in the scriptures (bhedanirdet).24 as we saw already, Madhva writes that the defects of
experiencing fatigue and so on do not apply in the case of Brahman because
of its supreme potencies (adhikaakti).25 Baladevas interpretation of the term
adhika in the stra follows that of akara and Rmnuja. At the same time his
description of Brahman as the possessor of excellent potencies (uruaktika)
echoes Madhva.
then Baladeva cites Muaka Upaniad 3.1.2,26 Bhagavad Gt 15.16-17,27 BhPu
22. GoBh 2.1.22: nanu brahmao pi [] ramahitkaradiprpti /
23. GoBh 2.1.22: akcchedya tuabda / jvd adhika brahma uruaktikatvt tasmd atyutkam
/ tat kuta? streu tathaiva bhedanirdet /
24. BraSBh (a) 2.1.22: yat sarvaja sarvaakti brahma nityauddhabuddhamuktasvabhva
rrd adhikamanyat, tad vaya jagata sra brma / [] bhedanirdet /
rBh 2.1.22: dhytmikdidukhayogrht pratyaktmana adhikam arthntarabhta
brahma / kuta? bhedanirdet pratyaktmano hi bhedena nirdiyate para brahma [] /
25. BraSBh (Ma) 2.1.22: na ca brahmaa ramacintdidoaprpti / adhikaaktitvt /
26. this is identical with vetvatara Upaniad 4.6.
samne vke puruo nimagno nay ocati muhyamna /
jua yad payaty anyam am asya mahimnam eti vtaoka //
on the same tree, the living entity, being depressed [and] bewildered, laments because of
the absence of the Lord. at that time, he sees the Lord who is other [than him] [and] who is
furnished with [unlimited excellent qualities]. His sorrow disappears [and] he reaches His
glory.
27. dvv imau puruau loke kara ckara eva ca /
kara sarvi bhtni kastho kara ucyate //
uttama puruas tv anya paramtmety udhta /
yo lokatrayam viya bibharty avyaya vara //
In the world, there are these two puruas. [they are] indeed both perishable and imper Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

214

1.11.39,28 ViPu 1.2.16,29 1.2.24,30 and concludes:

thus, in the Muaka Upaniad and so on, it is taught that there is a distinction
between the Supreme Self and the living entity, who is afected by lamentation
and delusion because [the Supreme Self] is the one whose supremacy and so on
are unimpaired.31

akara, Rmnuja and Madhva all cite various passages, which point to the
distinction between the living entity and Brahman. In terms of the citations
quoted, Baladeva overlaps only with Rmnuja in citing Muaka Upaniad
3.1.2. His quotations from the Bhagavad Gt, the Bhgavata Pura and the
Viu Purna are not found in his predecessors commentaries on the stra.
One might suspect certain Gauya inluence on Baladeva in this regard since,
as indicated above, these scriptures were foundational for his Gauya predecessor Jva Gosvm. In fact ViPu 1.2.24 is cited in Jvas Paramtmasandarbha,
Anuccheda 53, and BhPu 1.11.39 in his Prtisandarbha, Anuccheda 138. These
quotations fall into the irst category where it is the ruti and smti texts cited
by Baladeva which reveal a certain inluence of his predecessors on him.
Baladeva then gives an analogy of a spider to describe how Brahman is not
liable to the charges raised by the prima facie view:

ishable. It is said that all beings are perishable [and] the one who is situated on the top is
imperishable. The highest person, however, is diferent [from these two persons] and is
called the Supreme Self. He who enters into the three worlds and maintains them is the
imperishable Lord.
28. etad anam asya praktistho pi tadguai /
na yujyate sadtmasthair yath buddhis tadray //
this is the greatness of the Lord. Even though [the Lord] is situated in prakti, [He] is not
connected with its qualities, just as the intelligence [of the devotees], whose refuge is He
[i.e. the Lord], [is not connected] with that which causes the living entity to stay in the
unreal [i.e. prakti].
29. pradhnapuruvyaktakln parama hi yat /
payanti sraya uddha tad vio parama padam //
The sages behold that pure [and] supreme abode of Viu, which is indeed the highest
among pradhna, purua, the unmanifest, and time.
Cf. g Veda 1.22.20a: tad vio parama pada sad payanti sraya /
30. vio svarpt parato hi te nye rpe pradhna purua ca vipra /
tasyaiva te nyena dhte viyukte rpea yat tad dvija klasajam //
o sage! these two other forms, [namely] pradhna and purua, are from the supreme nature
of Viu. O twice-born! They are maintained [and] controlled by His other nature which is
called time.
31. muakdau [] okamohagrastt jvt paramtmano khaitaivaryditvena bhedo nirdiyate. I
take akhaitaivarydi to be a genitive bahuvrhi compound qualifying paramtm: akhait aivarydigu yasya paramtm sa. di in aivarydi refers to ive other qualities,
power, fame, beauty, knowledge, and renunciation, commonly held to be possessed by the
Lord in Vaiava theology. Cf. ViPu 6.5.74: aivaryasya samagrasya vryasya yaasa riya /
jnavairgyayo caiva sa bhaga itra //
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

215

Like a spider, the Lord, whose great potencies are not to be comprehended, creates
the universe merely by his own will, enters into it, plays, and annihilates [it] when
it [i.e. the universe] is old. Thus, there is not [even] a whif of the fault which was
mentioned earlier.32

a spider is not fatigued by the creation of its web; nor is it trapped in its
own creation since it can also destroy the web. In the same way, because of
his inconceivably great potency (avicintyoruakti), the Lord does not experience any fatigue in the act of creation. He is also able to destroy his creation
through such power. therefore the two defects, experiencing fatigue and
being trapped in the creation, which would apply to the living entitys creatorship, do not apply to Brahman.
Though it is not exactly a quotation, this spider analogy relects Jvas
inluence on Baladeva most clearly. Therefore, perhaps this analogy can be
categorized as the third type of citation where Baladeva uses earlier writings,
following the original authors application. Besides pointing out how the two
defects raised by the opponent do not apply to Brahman, this analogy also
indicates how the Lord is simultaneously the material cause and instrumental
cause of the universe. In his Bhagavatsandarbha Anuccheda 40, Jva describes
the Lord as the only creator, citing the analogy of the spider:
We hear an example with regard to the fact that none other than the supreme
Lord accomplishes the creation of the universe: as a spider (stretches thread)
from within (through the mouth, plays with it and again swallows it, in the same
way the great Lord [creates the universe from within, maintains it, and dissolves
it into Himself]).33

a spider creates its web using thread that comes from itself. therefore the
spider is the material and instrumental cause of its own web. Similarly,
Brahman creates the universe using material that comes from within. Jva
holds the view of Brahman as both the material and instrumental cause of the
universe, and Baladeva follows him.
as will be seen below, in his commentary on BraS 2.1.23-25, Baladeva
closely follows Madhva. However, it is important to recognize here that by
accepting Brahman as the material cause of the universe, Baladeva diverges
signiicantly from Madhvas ontological scheme wherein Brahman is accepted
only as the instrumental cause of the universe. Baladevas diversion from
Madhva here points to his operating principle of using non-Gauya material
32. GoBh 2.1.22: [] avicintyoruaktir vara svasakalpamtrt jagat sv tasmin praviya
vikrati, jra ca tat saharaty ranbhivad iti, na prvoktadoagandha /
33. Bhagavatsandarbha, Anuccheda 40: paramevarasya jagatsv ananyasdhakatve dnta
ryate, yathoranbhir hdayd (BhPu 11.9.21a) itydi tadvat /
BhPu 11.9.21:
yathoranbhir hdayd r santatya vaktrata /
tay vihtya bhyas t grasaty eva mahevara //
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

216

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

in the service of establishing the Gauya theology. Baladeva is not shy to

borrow from akara, Rmnuja and Madhva whenever they are useful. At
the same time, he is not afraid of rejecting those three predecessors if that is
required to follow Jvas theology faithfully.
In fact, a similar observation is made by David Buchta (2005) who examines Baladevas commentary on BraS 2.1.3. In that section, both akara
and Rmnuja reject the Yoga school primarily because the school accepts
the Skhya schools dualism. According to the Skhya system, Prakti is
the material cause of the universe, and it is eternally distinct from Purua,
the instrumental cause. akara and Rmnuja cannot accept this dualism
since they hold the view that Brahman alone is the material and instrumental cause of the universe. Madhva, however, ofers completely diferent
reasons for his rejection of the Yoga school. For Madhva, the Skhya view
of Prakti, which is shared by the yoga school, is not necessarily an issue
since he also holds the view that Prakti is the material cause of the universe. As shown above, Jvas view is much closer to akara and Rmnuja
in this regard, and consequently Baladevas commentary on the stra follows akara and Rmnuja, and neglects Madhva.34
at the end of his commentary on BraS 2.1.22, Baladeva deals with the three
prima facie views advanced by the advaitins. these views deal with the three
well-known analogies of (i) space and the space limited by a pot, (ii) the moon
and its relection, and (iii) a prince who forgot his royal identity. In each case,
he rejects the advaita view by skilfully pointing out how, within the advaita
system, their arguments are self-contradictory. akara uses these analogies
to support his conclusive view (siddhnta). However, Baladeva uses these analogies as the prima facie view. thus this is the second type of quotation in which a
citation is used in a way contrary to the original authors application. the way
Baladeva deals with these analogies reveals his thorough familiarity with the
Advaita Vednta system and its weaknesses. This familiarity might be attributed to the training he received in his youth as a Mdhva Vedntin since the
Mdhvas are well-known for their vehement criticism of Advaita Vednta.
The irst prima facie view in Baladevas commentary on BraS 2.1.22 is based
on the analogy of space in a pot. this analogy is taken from the conclusive
view (siddhnta) in akaras commentary on the same stra. akara explains
stra 2.1.22 in terms of the superiority (adhikam) of Brahman to the living
entity. therefore, the prima facie view in akaras commentary raises an
objection: Surely the teaching of non-diference [between the living entity
and Brahman] is also seen, in phrases such as That you are. How could there
be diference and non-diference [between the living entity and Brahman],
which are contradictory?35 akara gives the conclusive view (siddhnta) by
34. On the topic of Baladevas relation to the Mdhva tradition, see also Okita (2008 and 2009).
35. BraSBh (a) 2.1.22: nanv abhedanirdeo pi darita tat tvam asi ity eva jtyaka / katha
bhedbhedau viruddhau sabhaveytm /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

217

using the analogy of space and space limited by a pot: this is not a defect
since both statements are possible in each case through the maxim of space
and space in a pot.36 According to akara therefore, the living entity and
Brahman are the same like space and space limited by a pot are. at the same
time, the living entity is limited and diferent from Brahman as space in a pot
is limited and much smaller than space itself. Therefore, akara contends,
the creatorship of the world can be attributed only to Brahman, and not to
the living entity, although ultimately there is no distinction between the two.
Baladeva takes this conclusive view of akara as the prima facie view and
replies by negation:
Surely this superiority {adhikam} of the Lord over the living entity is like [the superiority] of great space over the space in a pot. If [the opponent says] thus, [we say]
No. Since [we] do not accept that it [i.e. Brahman] is an object of division like that
[i.e. space].37

Baladeva thus appeals to the doctrine of Brahmans indivisibility (akhaitatva),

and says that the analogy of space cannot be applied to Brahman. Since the
indivisibility of Brahman is also accepted by the advaitins, Baladeva shows
that the analogy of space is self-contradicting within their system.
the second view put forward is based on the analogy of the moon and
its relection. In his commentary on BraS 3.2.18, akara cites Amtabindu
Upaniad 12 to explain how Brahman is superior to the living entity while
at the same time they are one: to explain, the Self of the beings is one only,
placed in each being. We see [it] as both one and many like the moon in the
water.38 Although the moon is one, its relection in water can be many. Similarly, the living entities are nothing but relections of one Brahman. Baladeva
rejects this analogy:
Nor is it the case that it [i.e. Brahman] is so [i.e. superior] over it [i.e. the living
entity] like the moon in the sky is [superior] over the moon [relected] in the
water, since it [i.e. Brahman], being all-pervading [and] formless, cannot have a
relection as is [possible in the case of] it [i.e. the moon].39

According to Baladeva, the analogy of the moon and its relection in water
is not applicable to Brahman since it is all-pervasive (vibhu) and formless
(nrpa). again, Baladeva is pointing out the contradiction within the system
of Advaita Vednta. The Advaitins accept that Brahman is ultimately without
36. BraSBh (a) 2.1.22: naia doa / kaghakanyyenobhayasabhavasya tatra tatra
pratihapitatvt /
37. GoBh 2.1.22: nanu ghakt mahkasyevaitaj jvd varasydhikyam iti cen na / tadvat
tasya paricchedaviayatvsvkrt /
38. eka eva hi bhttm bhte bhte vyavasthita /
ekadh bahudh caiva dyate jalacandravat //
39. GoBh 2.1.22: na ca jalacandrt viyaccandrasyeva tasmt tasya tad vibhor nrpasya ([nrpasya]
K; nirpasya M) tasya tadvat pratibimbsambhavt /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

218

qualities. If so, it is formless and therefore there can be no relection. This

implies that the analogy of the moon does not support their argument.
the third view put forward is based on the analogy of a prince who forgets
his true identity. In akaras commentary on Bhadrayaka Upaniad 2.1.20,
he gives this analogy:
again, when someone who is very compassionate informs a prince about the fact
that [he is] the son of that [king], knowing that [the prince is] it for obtaining
the wealth of the king, saying you are not a hunter. [you are] the son of that
king. you have somehow entered into a hunters house, [at that time] the prince
understands this, gives up the ideas and activities of the hunter class, and pursues
the way of his own father and ancestors, saying I am a king.40

according to this analogy, Brahman behaves as the living entity when it

forgets its true identity, just as a prince who forgets his royal identity behaves
as a hunter. In reality, however, the living entity is always Brahman and he
just needs to be informed about his/its true identity. Baladeva rejects this
analogy:
Nor is it the case that Brahman, who is one, [yet] by error becomes the living
entity, [can] have excellence and diminution like a prince, who has become a slave
out of confusion since that would contradict the ruti passages regarding omniscience [of Brahman].41

the analogy of a prince does not work since it goes against the omniscience
(srvajya) of Brahman. Brahman does not forget its identity like the prince.
the omniscience of Brahman is accepted by the advaitins, and it is a point
that they would not want to give up.
By referring to the indivisibility (akhaitatva), all-pervasiveness (vibhutva),
formlessness (nrpatva) and omniscience (srvajya) of Brahman, Baladeva
points out that these three analogies of space, the moon and the prince do
not work for Advaita Vednta. As suggested above, the skilfulness Baladeva
shows in this discussion might have come from his Mdhva upbringing. At the
same time, however, we should remember that the rejection of the oneness
between Brahman and the living entity is something Jva would also accept.
Thus, so long as his Mdhva training is useful for strengthening his Gauya
predecessors viewpoint, Baladeva is happy to utilize it.
We witness the impact of Mdhva Vednta on Baladeva even more vividly in
his commentary on BraS 2.1.23-25. In this section, we observe many examples
of the third type of quotation where Baladeva copies an earlier Vedntin, fol40. akara BUBh 2.1.20: yad puna kacit paramakruiko rjaputrasya rjarprptiyogyat
jnann amuya putrat bodhayati na tva vydho muya rja putra, kathacid vydhagham
anupravia iti, sa eva bodhitas tyaktv vydhajtipratyayakarmi pitpaitmahm tmana
padavm anuvartate rjham asmi iti /
41. GoBh 2.1.22: na ca rjaputrasyevptadsabhramasyaikasya brahmao bhramd jvasyotkarpakarau ([-apakarau] em. Isaacson; -apakare K, M) srvajyarutivirodht /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

219

lowing the original authors application. In this particular context, much of

Baladevas commentary is virtually copied from Madhva.
after explaining the superiority of Brahman over the living entity, Baladeva points out the impossibility of the living entity being the creator of
the universe. Commenting on BraS 2.1.23 (amdivac ca tadanupapatti //),
Baladeva explains the stra as follows: Even though the living entity is conscious it is not possible {anupapatti} that [the living entity] is the independent creator [of the universe] {tat} since [the living entity] is not independent
like stone, wood, or clay {amdivat}.42 Baladevas gloss on this particular
stra may be considered a type of quotation since it is almost identical with
that of Madhva: Even though the living entity is conscious, it is not possible
{anupapatti} that [the living entity] is the independent creator [of the universe] {tat} since [the living entity] is not independent like stone and so on
{amdivat}.43
Baladevas commentary on this stra diverges from akara and Rmnuja.
Proceeding from the analogy of greater space and the space in a pot, akara
continues to argue for the oneness between the living entity and Brahman.
As for Rmnuja, he uses the stra to point out the distinction between the
living entity and Brahman. according to him, the stra means that, just as it
is not possible that stones and so on are one with Brahman {amdivat}, it is
also not possible that the living entity is one with Brahman {tadanupapatti}.44
Then Rmnuja explains the oneness between the living entity and Brahman
in terms of the analogy of body and soul: they are one in the sense that the
living entity comprises the body of Brahman.45
In Baladevas commentary on BraS 2.1.24 (upasahradarann neti cen na
kravad dhi //), he continues to follow Madhva. Commenting on the previous
stra, Baladeva has explained that the living entity cannot be the creator of
the universe since he is, like a stone and so on, dependent on Brahman. the
prima facie view in the commentary on BraS 2.1.24 comes back to this point
and says:
Surely, the living entity is not a non-creator like a stone and so on since we see that
he [i.e. the living entity] concludes [his] task. For it is seen {darant} that he [i.e.
the living entity] accomplishes {upasahra} that task which he has undertaken.46
42. GoBh 2.1.23: cetanasypi jvasymakhaloravad asvtantryt svata karttvnupapatti /
43. BraSBh (Ma) 2.1.23: cetanatve py amdivad asvatantratvt svata karttvnupapattir jvasya /
44. rBh 2.1.23: amakaloatdnm [] brahmasvarpaikya yath nopapadyate tath
cetanasypy anantadukhayogrhasya svadyo kalpasya [] brahmabhvnupapati /
45. rBh 2.1.23: smndhikarayanirdea yasytm arram itydiruter jvasya brahmaarratvt [] /
It is worth noting that although metaphysically Baladevas view on the living entity is much
closer to Rmnujas view, he follows Madhvas commentary in this section and does not
discuss the bodysoul analogy of Rmnuja.
46. GoBh 2.1.23: nanu nmdivad akarttva jvasya tasyaiva kryopasahra- darant / sa hi yat
kryam rabhate tat sampayatti dam /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

220

the agency (karttva) of the living entity must be accepted since it is seen
that the living entity takes up certain tasks and achieves certain goals. again,
this prima facie view is almost identical with Madhvas: [the living entity]
is the [independent] creator since it is seen {darant} that the living entity
accomplishes {upasahra} [some] task.47 to this objection, Baladeva replies
by commenting on the latter half of the stra:
therefore, the living entity only is the creator [of the universe] through action,
but not the Lord. If [the opponent says] thus, [the Siddhntin says] No. Why?
[Because the stra says] kravad dhi. [that is,] since {hi} the accomplishment of
action exists like milk {kravat}.48

Baladeva further elaborates the analogy of milk:

Even though it is observed that milk [arises from] a cow, it arises from pra only,
since there is a smti text, that pra causes food to mature in the form of liquid
and so on. In the same manner, even though it [i.e. the accomplishment of the
task] is observed with regard to the living entity, it [arises] from the supreme Lord
only because of the dependence [of the living entity on the Lord].49

this explanation of the analogy of milk is virtually identical with Madhvas

commentary on the same stra:
Even though milk is observed in relation to cows, it arises only from pra since
there is a statement, that pra causes food to mature in the form of liquid and so
on. In the same manner, even though the accomplishment of the task is observed
in relation to the living entity, it is only done by the supreme since [the living
entity is] without independence.50

the smti text cited by Baladeva is untraceable. Madhva quotes the same text
without specifying its source. Following Madhva, Baladeva says that even
though the living entity has agency (karttva), it cannot be the independent
creator of the universe since its agency is dependent on Brahman. Whereas
Madhva and Baladeva discuss the agency of the living entity, in akaras
comment on this stra he discusses the agency of Brahman and Rmnuja
follows akaras discussion.
Baladevas commentary on stra 2.1.25 (devdivad iti loke //) again follows
Madhvas commentary very closely. Baladeva starts his commentary by
47. BraSBh (Ma) 2.1.24: jvena kryopasahradarant tasya karttvam iti [] /
48. GoBh 2.1.24: tasmt jvasyaiva karmadvraka karttva, na tv asyeti cen, na / kuta? kravad
dhi / hi yata jve kryopasahra kravat pravartate /
49. GoBh 2.1.24: yath gavi dyamnam api kra prd eva jyate, anna rasdirpea pra
pariamaty ([pariamaty] K; pariamayaty M) asau itismte, tath jve dyamo pi so svtantryt pared evety ([evety] M ; avety K) artha /
50. BraSBh (Ma) 2.1.24: yath gou kra dyamnam api prd eva jyate / anna rasdirpea
pra pariamaty ([pariamaty] em.; pariayaty) asau itivacant / eva jve dyamno pi
kryopasahro svtantryt parakta eva /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

221

stating that the fact that Brahman is not seen is not contradictory to the idea
that it is the creator of the universe.51 Baladeva explains the reason for this
statement by commenting on the stra:
[the invisibility of Brahman is not against its creatorship] since it is established
that, in the world {loke}, Indra and the other gods {devdi} are the agents of raining
and so on, even though they are not seen; in the same manner {-vat}, the Lord is
the creator of the universe, even though he is not seen.52

Baladevas explanation closely follows Madhvas commentary:

Nor is it contradictory that the Lord who is the creator is not seen, since like the
gods {devdivat} [the Lord] has the power to be unseen. In the world {loke} also, we
see that Indra and so on have such capacity [to be unseen]. What more can we say
about the Lord?53

akara, Rmnuja, Madhva and Baladeva thus all subscribe to the Indian
cultural view that divine igures (devas) control what we see as natural phenomena. Presupposing such a framework, Madhva and Baladeva argue that
the invisibility of the Lord is not a defect in his creatorship since, despite the
gods invisibility, it is accepted that they control natural phenomena.
akara ofers a diferent interpretation of the stra, and Rmnuja follows him. Commenting on the previous stra, akara has argued that it
is possible for Brahman to create without depending on any instruments
that are external to itself. akara follows up this argument and says that
Brahman can create the world without depending on any external means,
just as in the world {loke} it is observed that the gods, the ancestors and the
sages {devdivat} can create various objects through their intention only,
without any external means.54 Rmnuja follows akaras argument and
says that Brahman does not need any external means for creation since it
creates by intention only (sakalpamtrea).55

51. GoBh 2.1.25: na cnupalabdhivirodha iti [] /

52. GoBh 2.1.25: adyamasypndrder loke varadikarttvasiddhe ([varadi-] K; varandiM) / tath cnupalabhyamno pvaro vivakarteti //
53. BraSBh (Ma) 2.1.26: na ca kartur varasydivirodha / devdivad adyatvaaktiyogt / loke
pi picdn td aktir d, kim v varasya /
54. BraSBh (a) 2.1.25: yath loke dev pitara aya ityevamdayo mahprabhv cetan api santo
napekyaiva kicid bhya sdhanam aivaryavieayogd abhidhynamtrea svata eva bahni
nnsasthni arri prsddni ca rathdni ca nirmim upalabhyante mantrrthavdetihsapura-prmyt /
55. rBh: yath devdaya sve sve loke sakalpamtrea svpekitni sjanti, tath sau pruottama
ktsna jagat sakalpamtrea sjati /
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

222

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

CoNCLuSIoN
Baladeva accepts the living entitys distinction from Brahman and argues
against Advaita Vednta. He is so familiar with the arguments ofered by the
Advaitins that he uses akaras analogies and examples to argue against the
advaita system. In Baladevas commentary on BraS 2.1.21 he uses the analogy
of the prison house as a part of his conclusive view. akara originally uses
this analogy as his prima facie view. also in his commentary on BraS 2.1.22,
Baladeva points out that the analogies of space, the moon and the prince used
by the advaitins do not actually support their arguments. these are examples
of the second type of quotation where Baladeva cites a previous Vedntin but
uses his analogies to contradict the original authors application.
His knowledge of the Advaita system and his clear opposition to it can be
seen as a result of the training Baladeva received in the Mdhva school. In fact
his commentary on BraS 2.1.23-25 is virtually copied from Madhvas commentary on the same stras. thus much of Baladevas commentary on these
three stras falls into the third type of quotation where he cites a previous
Vedntin following the original authors application. It may be observed that
Baladeva utilizes his learning in the Mdhva school when he argues against
the oneness of Brahman and the living entity. at the same time, it must be
pointed out that Baladevas close following of Madhva does not betray his
idelity to Jva. Jva is in agreement with Madhva in terms of his rejection of
the unity between Brahman and the living entity.56
Baladevas faithfulness to Jvas teaching is distinctly seen in GoBh 2.1.22
where Baladeva gives the analogy of the spider. Using this analogy, Jva
supports the view that Brahman is both the instrumental and material cause
of the world. Baladeva subscribes to this view, which goes sharply against
Madhva who argues that Brahman is the instrumental cause only. Baladevas
use of the spider analogy is a good example of the third type of quotation. In
addition, Jvas inluence on Baladeva was also observed in the ruti and the
smti texts quoted in Baladevas commentary on BraS 2.1.22, particularly in
his reliance on the Bhgavata Pura and the Viu Purna. this is an instance
of the irst type of quotation in which the ruti and the smti texts cited by an
author reveal his predecessors inluence on him.
an examination on Baladevas commentary of BraS 2.1.21-25 shows that
Baladeva quotes the works of previous Vedntins as long as they are useful
for supporting the Gauya view delineated by Jva. In this sense, Baladevas
eclecticism is not simply borrowing from diferent schools without any commitment. Moreover, Baladevas broad learning and his skilful engagement
with the earlier schools of Vednta outside his own Gauya ailiation points
to the lively state of Sanskrit learning and production in the area of Vednta
in the eighteenth century. It is hoped that this article will contribute to the
56. See Part II, 3.3, Part III, 2.1 in Okita (2011).
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

OkitA QUOTATIOn In EARlY MODERn VEDnTA

223

study of Vednta in early modern India, which till now has received less attention than it deserves.

aBBREVIatIoNS
BhPu
BraS
BraSBh (Ma)
BraSBh (a)
BUBh
GoBh
rBh
ViPu

Bhgavata Pura (Vysa 1983)

Brahmastras
Brahmastrabhya of Madhva (Madhva 1999)
Brahmastrabhya of akara (akara 1917)
Bhadrayakopaniadbhya of akara (akara 2000)
The Govindabhya of Baladeva (Baladeva 1953 [M], 1968 [K])
rbhya of Rmnuja (Rmnuja 1967)
Viu Pura (Vysa 1910)

REFERENCES
Primary Sources
Baladeva Vidybhaa. 1953. r-Brahmastra-Govindabhyam Hind-bhnuvdasahitam rBaladeva-Vidybhaa-mahodaya-viracitam, ed. Kadsa. Mathur: Puparja Press.
1968. Vedntastram r Govindabhyea Skm kay ca Sametam. 4 vols. Kolkata: r Srasvata
Gauysana Mission.
Jva. 1986. Bhgavatasandarbha (asandarbha), trans. (Hindi) Harids str. 6 vols. Vndavana:
Gaddharagaurahari Press.
Madhva. 1999. Brahmastrabhyam in rmad-nandatrtha-bhagavatpda-prata-Sarvamlagran
th, ed. Vyasanakere Prabhanjanacharya. 7 vols. Vol. 2. Bangalore: r Vysamadhwa Sev
Pratihna.
Rmnuja. 1967. Bhagavad-Bdaryaa-prata-Brahmastrkhya-rraka-mmsbhya rbha
gavad-Rmnuja-viracita rbhyam, ed. Uttamr Vrarghavcrya. Chennai: r Uttamr
Vrarghavcrya Centenary Trust.
akara. 1917. Brahmastrakarabhyam, rmad-Appayyadkita-viracita-Parimalopabhitarmad-Amalnandasarasvat-prata-Kalpataru-vykhyyuta-rmad-VcaspatimiraktaBhmatvilasitam, ed. n. S. Anantaka stri and Vasudev laxman Sstr Pankar. Bombay:
Nirnaya Sagar Press.
Vysa [trad. attribution]. (1910). rviumahpuram, ed. Kemarja rkadsa. Bombay:
rvekatevara Press.
1983. Bhgavata Pura of Ka Dvaipyana Vysa with Sanskrit Commentary Bhvrthabodhin of
Srdhara Svmin, ed. J. L. Shastri. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Secondary Sources
alavi, Seema (ed.). 2002. The Eighteenth Century in India. Delhi: oxford university Press.
Buchta, David. 2004. Book Review: First Steps in Vednta by Neal Delmonico. Journal of Vaishnava
Studies 13(1) (Fall): 21118.
2005. The Vedntic Refutation of Yoga. Journal of Vaishnava Studies 14(1) (Fall): 181208.
2006. Puras as ruti. Journal of Vaishnava Studies 15(1) (Fall): 87108.
2007. Baladevas Multi-Regional Inluences. Journal of Vaishnava Studies 15(2) (Spring): 8194.
Burton, a. P. 2000. temples, texts, and taxes: the Bhagavad-gita and the Politico-Religious Identity of the Caitanya Sect. unpublished PhD thesis, australian National university.

Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.

224

RElIGIOnS OF SOUTH ASIA

Elkman, Stuart Mark. 1986. Jva Gosvmins Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the Philosophical and Sectarian
Development of the Gauya Vaiava Movement. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Gupta, Ravi, M. 2007. The Caitanya Vaiava Vednta of Jva Gosvm: When Knowledge Meets Devotion.
Routledge Hindu Studies Series. london and new York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11407-006-9003-7
Gupta, Sanjukta. 2006. Advaita Vednta and Vaiavism: The Philosophy of Madhusdhana Sarasvat.
London and New york: Routledge.
Harimoto, Kengo. 2006. The Date of akara: Between the Cukyas and the Rrakas. Journal
of Indological Studies 18: 85111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10783-005-4913-9
Marshall, P. J. (ed.) 2003. The Eighteenth Century in Indian History: Evolution or Revolution? Delhi:
oxford university Press.
Narang, Sudesh. 1984. The Vaisnava Philosophy: According to Baladeva Vidybhana. Delhi: Nag Publishers.
Narasimhachary, M. 2004. Sri Ramanuja. New Delhi: Sahitya akademi.
Okita, Kiyokazu. 2008. Mdhva or Gauya? The Philosophy of Baladeva Vidybhaas Prameyaratnval. Journal of Vaishnava Studies 16(2): 3348.
2009. A Bengali Vaiava Contribution to Vednta: Baladeva Vidybhaa on the Word atha in
the Brahmastra 1.1.1. Journal of Vaishnava Studies 18(1): 87100.
2011. Puric Vednta: On the Issue of lineage in the Gauya Vaiava Sampradya. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, university of oxford.
Pollock, Sheldon. 2002. Introduction: Working Papers on Sanskrit Knowledge-Systems on the
Eve of Colonialism. Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 43139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1022826320489
2004. Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern South asia: Introduction. Comparative Studies of
South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24(2): 1921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/1089201X-24-2-19
2011. Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern Asia: Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and
Tibet, 15001800. Durham, NC: Duke university Press.
akara. 2000. Ten Principal Upanishads with karabhya, Works of akarcrya in Original
Sanskrit, vol. 1. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Sharma, B. N. K. 1994. Advaitasiddhi vs Nyymta: An Up to Date Critical Re-appraisal Part I. Bangalore: nandatrtha Pratihna.
2000. History of the Dvaita School of Vednta and its Literature: From the Earliest Beginnings to Our Own
Time. 3rd rev. edn. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Suthren Hirst, J. G. 2005. akaras Advaita Vednta: A Way of Teaching. oxford: RoutledgeCurzon.
Washbrook, David. 2006. Part I. Changing Perspectives on the Economic History of India. Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies 2006(18) (2007): 20813.
Wright, Michael, and nancy Wright. 1993. Baladeva Vidybhaa: The GauyaVedntist. Journal of Vaiava Studies 1(2) (Winter): 15884.

Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012.