Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 9, Verse 30: Krishna to Arjuna — Rāja-Vidyā-Rāja-Guhya-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  Even if a person is supremely vicious in outward conduct (supra-dur-ācāra), if he worships Me with undivided, non-dual devotion (ananya-bhāk), he is to be known as a person of right conduct (sādhu)—for his inner resolve is sound. Śaṅkara reads 'ananya-bhāk' as the negation of any separate reality apart from the one Brahman: the bhakta perceives no 'other' god because no other exists. The lapse in external behaviour is a residual momentum (saṃskāra) that the force of samyak-vyavasāya—the correct understanding that Brahman alone is—will burn away from within.

  divergence: Advaita locates the 'soundness' entirely in the jñāna-resolve, not in the devotional relationship; bhakti here is a name for non-dual recognition.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  One who has transgressed the normative conduct of his birth-station (jāti-samācāra), yet worships Me with single-pointed, service-oriented devotion (ananya-prayojana bhajana), is to be honoured above all Vaiṣṇavas (vaiṣṇava-agresara)—not merely excused. Rāmānuja insists the resolve at stake is a specific doctrinal apprehension: 'Bhagavān Nārāyaṇa, the sole cause of the moving and unmoving world, is my master, my teacher, my supreme enjoyment'—a resolve (vyavasāya) so difficult to attain that its presence renders any lapse a minor deficiency (svalpam vaikalyam), never a ground for dishonour.

  divergence: Unlike Advaita, the relationship is personal: jīva is a mode (prakāra) of Bhagavān, so the bhakta's lapse does not dissolve identity but is outweighed by the intimacy of service-resolve.

• Madhvadvaita

  A true devotee of the Lord (tad-bhakta) will in general not be a person of vile conduct at all—such conduct and such bhakti are nearly incompatible. Yet if by great accumulated merit (bahu-puṇya) such a person somehow (kathaṃcit) arises, he is indeed to be regarded as sādhu. Madhva's terseness is itself doctrinal: the pairing of sudurācāra with ananya-bhāk is a near-impossibility, not a routine exemption; the verse marks an extreme limit-case, not a permission.

  divergence: Madhva resists the easy pastoral reading; the jīva's distinct ontology means conduct and devotion are not easily separable—hence near-impossibility as the doctrinal frame.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  The Lord here reveals His own nature as purifier of the utterly fallen (mahāpātita-pāvana). Even one who is completely without proper conduct (anācāra), if his mind flows toward Me alone (tad-bhāvavān)—not in outward ritual but in the inner current of sattā-sthiti, mental devotion oriented entirely to Kṛṣṇa—is foremost among Vaiṣṇavas (vaiṣṇava-agram-gaṇya). Vallabha cites Bhāgavata 7.9.10: 'a Śva-paca (outcast) who is oriented to Padmanābha's lotus feet is superior to a brāhmaṇa who is averse to them.' The grace (puṣṭi) is entirely the Lord's initiative; the bhakta's role is the mind's one-pointed inclination (citta-prāvaṇya).

  divergence: Puṣṭi-mārga alone foregrounds prasāda-primacy: the Lord's purifying power, not the devotee's resolve, is the operative cause.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Kṛṣṇa here demonstrates the inscrutable power of devotion to Him (mad-bhakter avitarkyaḥ prabhāva). Even a person of utterly vile conduct (atyantaṃ durācāraḥ), if he does not worship any other deity separately—knowing that other gods are non-separate from Vāsudeva, he worships Me, Śrī Nārāyaṇa, alone—is to be regarded as best (śreṣṭha). The ground: he has made the noble resolve (śobhana-adhyavasāya) that by worshipping the Supreme Lord alone he will attain fulfilment (kṛtārtho bhaviṣyāmi).

  divergence: Śrīdhara's 'ananya' is specifically non-worship of other deities (not Advaita's non-dual recognition); the commentary is devotionally warm yet textually anchored.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  This verse declares the very glory (mahimā) of devotion to Me, which produces equality from inequality. Whoever—like Ajāmila—is extremely vile in conduct, yet has become ananya-bhāk by some fortunate rise of destiny (kuta-scid-bhāgyodayāt) and thus worships Me, was previously a non-sādhu (asādhu) but is now to be regarded as sādhu alone. Why? Because he is possessed of right resolve (samyag-vyavasita, sādhu-niścayavān).

  divergence: Madhusūdana alone names Ajāmila as the paradigm case, grounding the doctrinal claim in a Bhāgavata narrative; his synthesis holds jñāna-ground (it is bhakti's mahimā, not a relaxation of ethics) while being devotionally expansive.