The guru cannot take anyone’s karma

A surprisingly common misconception among modern adherents of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism is that the guru ‘takes’ one’s karma. At the time of initiation, the guru is imagined to take on all karma of the disciple, akin to how Jesus takes the sins of his followers. From thereon, the guru is thought to suffer the reactions of the disciple’s future misdeeds if any. One result of such erroneous notions is that disciples live perpetually in guilt. For example, if the guru falls sick, they consider it their fault.

Two defects of attributing results to a person different from the doer

In Indian theology, it is impossible for anyone to do a Jesus-like ‘taking of sins’ – the person who commits offensive acts must suffer the results. In fact, to refute precisely such a proposal, Indian theologians commonly use two standard nyāyas –

kṛta-hāni- disablement of the results of performed karma,


akṛtābhyāgama – enablement of the results of unperformed karma.

That is, if a guru is able to take the sins of a disciple, then the disciple did not get the results of his or her actions (kṛta-hāni) and the guru received the results of actions he or she did not commit (akṛtabhyāgama). If any proposal has these two defects, they are rejected without any further consideration.

Why the defects of akṛtābhyāgama and kṛta-hāni do not apply to Bhagavān’s actions in the material world

As an example, consider Śrī Jīva Goswami’s examination of these two defects in the context of Bhagavān’s role in the material world. In Anuccheda 99 of the Paramātmā Sandarbha, he takes up the question of whether Bhagavān’s apparent interference in the material world- specifically empowering the devas to assist Him and empowering the asuras to fight Him- amounts to the defect of kṛta-hāni and akṛtābhyāgama. He writes,

atha kathaṁ so’pi viśuddha-sattvākhyo guṇaḥ prākṛto na bhavati ? kadā vā kutra taṁ vīryātiśayaṁ sañcārayati ? kathāṁ vā kṛta-hānya-kṛtābhyāgama-prasaṅgo na bhavati ?

Why should this guṇa, called viśuddha-sattva, not be material? When and where does He [Bhagavān] infuse this superlative śakti? And how is that [by the influence of viśuddha-sattva] the defect of the “disablement of the results of performed karma” and “the enablement of the results of unperformed karma” does not accrue?

The twin defects do not apply to Bhagavān because His acts are not under the control of karma. Because Bhagavān’s svarūpa is viśuddha-sattva, His empowerment of the devas occurs through viśuddha-sattva, a conscious substance which is altogether distinct from the three guṇas of prakrti.

A second reason why the above two defects do not apply to Bhagavān’s empowering the devas, or His empowering the asuras with rajas in order to be able to fight Him, is that He empowers through increasing the appropriate guṇas in the devas (sattva) and asuras (rajas). Thus, the asuras fight Bhagavān on account of the increased rajas, and the devas assist Bhagavān on account of their increased sattva, but both are still under the laws of karma, because both act under the control of māyā’s guṇas. Śrī Jīva Goswami explains this further in Anuccheda 100 – that māyā conforms to the līlā of Bhagavān. In other words, māyā orchestrates the ascendancy of one or the other guṇa (sattva so devas can assist, rajas to give power to the asuras, and tamas to give power to the yakṣas and rākṣasas) to enable the līlās of Bhagavan in a particular way.

Thus, the events that unfold involving the asuras or devas in Bhagavān’s līlā follow the law of karma (i.e. guṇas) while simultaneously conforming to Bhagavān’s will. That they conform to Bhagavān’s will is not known generally, which is why Bhagavān’s līlās are mistaken by many to be material in nature.

A genuine guru is beyond karma

It is not possible (as pointed out above) for someone to take another’s karma, but on the bhakti mārga, it is even more impossible. This is because a genuine guru on the bhakti mārga is not under the control of karma. As such, he or she lacks the ability to ‘take’ somebody else’s karma. This becomes amply clear upon even a cursory study of Śrī Jīva’s Bhakti Sandarbha.

For example, in Anuccheda 125, Śrī Jīva establishes how bhakti destroys aprārabdha karma- the stock of karma that has not manifested in this life. In Anuccheda 126, he shows how bhakti destroys all results of past karmas that bring suffering, and in Anuccheda 128, he shows how all prārabdha karma – that is results of karma which have manifested- are also destroyed. A little common sense is all that is required to understand that a guru, the person who is a siddha on the path of bhakti, cannot have any prārabdha or aprārabdha karmas attached to him or her. The guru is altogether beyond karma. It is nonsensical, then, to suppose that the guru will suffer by taking the karma of the disciple.


The notion that the guru takes the disciple’s karma is not accepted in Indian theology. On the path of bhakti, the guru is beyond karma, and harboring or propagating any notion to the contrary, is in itself an offense both to scripture and to the guru.

Categories: sādhanā

Tagged as:

8 replies »

  1. How, then, should we understand Vāsudeva Datta’s plea to Mahaprabhu? Was Vāsudeva Datta ignorant of “Indian theology”? If he was making an impossible request. why did Mahaprabhu seemingly accept that request? In that regard, was Vāsudeva Datta contaminated by Christian influence, and not the pure expansion of Prahlad Maharaj that most Gaudiyas assume him to be?

    • If Mahaprabhu transferred the whole world’s sins to Vasudev Datta as you suggest, that would cause immense suffering to Vasudeva datta. No such suffering is mentioned. Making a request for something out of emotion is one thing, confusing that with siddhanta is another. Even if Mahaprabhu liberated the whole world, that does not mean he transferred the karma to Vasudeva datta. The point of the article remains valid.

  2. BG 18.66 says one who surrenders to krsna then krsna takes all his sins then guru is also a manifestation of krsna (saksat haritvena) then according to this when we surrender to guru (gurupadashraya) then our sins must be taken by guru.

    • Quote the Sanskrit, and show me where the Sanskrit says: “Krsna takes all his sins”.
      Such notions are offensive to Krsna. Krsna does not suffer anyone else’s sins. He is pure bliss- there is no suffering in Him.

  3. Please study Haribhaktivilas 1/77 and its translation by Haridasa Sastriji and revise the article. It is risky to write such articles without researching completely.

      • Sure this is my final comment on this topic but when you are giving so much advice to others by making a site, you should have a courageous face to take an advice or two, especially when it is coming from sastra. By not including important verses on the subject matter and writing an article, you are not telling people the entire spectrum of the teachings of the acaryas on this subject matter. Hope you devote more time to your studies instead of writing such articles that show a striking lack of mana-shunyata.

      • I have already written a separate article on the Hari bhakti vilasa sloka you are preaching about. That was two years ago.

        You are unable to refute the content in the article, so you resort to insults and giving gratuitous, condescending advice. How typical!

        This website is not for you.

Leave a Reply