The double Authorship of Anubhashya

 

Ever since the first publication of Anubhashya in 1897 by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal it was generally believed that Vallabhacharya, the exponent of the Shuddhadvaita system of Vedanta. was the writer of the whole of Anubhashya, as we possess. It was, however, suggested in the year 1924 that the Anubhashya is not the production of Vallabha alone but has found a hand to complete it in the shape of his son Vitthalesa a feature not at all uncommon in the history of Sanskrit literature 2 The Same view was further endorsed by Pandit Pathak Shastri of Poona. 3 It is here proposed to bring to light the abundant evidence, hitherto unknown, in support of the above theory..

Let us first examine the internal evidence. The first striking evidence is of language. The works of Vallabha differ from those of his son, Vitthala, in style and language. Vallabha writes in a very simple prose containing short sentences with much meaning. 4 His style may be well be compared with that of Pantajali in his Mahabhashya. From another standpoint it may be called Curnika. style. With Vitthala the case was quite different. He is very fond of long compounds and sentences and of words which are likely to give alliteration. A perusal of his works leads us to believe that he had a very great command over classical Sanskrit language and literature and there too he was much influenced by Bana's Kadambari. His over fondness for compounds may be a result of his acceptance of Dandin's theory that superabundance of compounds is the soul of prose. His style may be called utkalika. Almost all his works are full of passages 5 justifying the above remark.

 

1. Of. Prof. M.G.. Shastri's introduction to his edition of Anubhashya (Bombay, 1924).

2. A striking parallel instance is furnished by Kadambari written by Bana and his son BhusanaBhatta.

3. Of. Pathak Shastri's Introduction to his edition of Anubhashya (Bombay S.S.).

4:. Two extracts from Vallabha's prose works other than the Bhashya are here given by way of illustrations:..

 

In the Bhashya also we find two different styles exactly corresponding to those of Vallabha and Vitthala Some portion 6 of the Bhashya completely answer. to the description of Vallabha's style, while the other portion is in keeping with the style of Vitthala. We are, therefore, forced to come to the conclusion that the; Anubhashya has been written by both Vallabh and Vitthala.

The next internal evidence is of thought and matter. A critical study of the work, of both the father and the son will clearly show that there is a remarkable difference in their mentality. One and the same thing is viewed by them from different standpoints and this is carried to such an extent that Vitthala does not remain satisfied with the explanations of his father and is therefore compelled to express his own opinion in the matter by offering some alternative explanation introducing it by his usual 1 his has invariably happened in almost all the' works of Vallabha and the commentators do not fail to point out the addition made by Vithala, 8 and what is more, the additional explanations very much differ from the original ones of his father-a fact clearly indicating difference in their mentality. Moreover, there are certain Sutras of the Vedanta- Sutras which are explained by father and the son. 9 There is also one Sutra 10 explained by Vallabha in the Bhashya and Vithala has not at all hesitated in incorporating his own interpretation in the body of the Bhashya. This difference of opinion is seen in the  portions of the Bhashya. The Sutras of the, first two and a half Adhyayas are more or less interpreted in the most natural manner, generally in keeping with' the spirit of the Upanishads. The writer of the first portion is always conscious of the fact that the Brahma-sutras of Badarayana try to harmonize different conflicting passage of the Upanishads and the interpretation of the Sutras must be at any rate in keeping with the general tenor of the Upanishads. Most of the quotations in the portion, alleged to have been written by Vallabha, are, therefore, from the Vedas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, the Upanishads, the Shrauta Sutras, Manu, Gita and rarely from Bhagavata, 11 even though the last one is looked upon by Vallabha as one of the four authoritative works of his Sampradaya. Even the word Pushti ('grace') the most important word in the religion founded by Vallabha, is mentioned only once I and that too as a side remark 12 Some of the Sutras containing the word S×ëçÌ or any form of the. S×ë are taken to refer to some Upanishad passage or to some Gita verse. It is only once that the reference is made to Bhagavata. 18 The first portion again contains many references to Âêßü×è×æ¢#æ All these characteristics are to be found in Vallabha alone and it should therefore be held that the first portion of the Bhashya was written by him. The latter Portion, however, contains as a general rule many references to the principal religious tenets of Vallabha's school. The writer of the portion seeks every opportunity to usher in his own religious beliefs. In some places in the Bhashya a long discussion is given about thing which should find place in some religious works. It has been above shown that Vitthala's alternative explanations are religious in character and the same thing happens in the second part of the Bhashya. There are many references. to the system to»õÌ× of which Vitthala was a great scholar.

The interpretation of S×ë in the Sutras (referred to above) in the latter portion of the Bhashya is generally in keeping with the religious doctrines as the reference in almost all cases is made. to Bhagavata for which Vitthala had much predilection. It is thus obvious that the author of the second portion of the Bhashya is Vitthala. The preponderance of religious belief in Vitthala bhashya may be due, not to his ignorance of the nature of the Brahma.sutras, but to his strong desire of refuting Samkara's Mayavada which. was in his (Vitthala's) eyes, untenable. In exploding Samkara's theory of Mayavada Vitthala was more or less influenced by the. formers way of arguing' It is therefore clear that the mentality of Vallabha and Vitthala was different and that the latter could not see eye to eye with his father, and this accounts for the different strata of thoughts in the Bhashya.

 

8. In his तत्त्वदीपनिबन्ध (विद्यावैयन्ति 5०1९४ of Benares) Vallabha explains the 27th verse or the first chapter. Vitthala, not being satisfied with his father's explanation, expresses his own view by saying sand भवति | वस्तुतस्तु 29 lines more पुरुषोत्तमजी the commentator thereon, remarks एतस्यार्थस्य श्रौतत्वबोधनाय प्रभव: (another name of Vithala) तात्पर्यमस्याहरिदमुक्तं भवतीत्यादिना | In a similar manner Vithala adds.his own explanation to his father's explanation of the 5th verse of the above-mentioned TTaeI This remark is also applicable to Vallabha's सुबोधिनी 8 commentary on Bhagavata.

9. Contrast Vithala's explanation of.. A.4. 11.3.42 given in his विद्वन्मण्डन, p. 91, with that or Vallabha 1n the Bhasya. Similarly, contrast the explanations on Wl. II. 3.43, IV. 4.2

 

Further, we find in the Bhasya refernces 18 WUadea to and TAGAAUSA works decidedly written by Vitthala..In one place 1.17 Vitthala 1s mentioned by his name. These references are absurd

The references, again, cannot be dismissed on the ground of interpolation as they are. found even in the oldest manuscript of the sixteenth century. It can thus be shown that Vitthala has his hand in completing the Bhashya.

 

10. आनन्दमयो5 arate । (ब्र. @ 1.11). Read the Bhasya thereon and the remark made by the commentator.

11. The total member of quotations from Bhagavata 1s about 13, out of which only 3 are found in the first two and a half Adhyayas, while the remaining are to be found in the latter portion.

12. मर्यादामार्गस्य तथेव निर्माणात्‌ । यत्रान्यथा स पुष्टिमध्य इति । (अनुभाष्य ०01. 3.42)

13. The Sutra 31ft GAA occurs four times. In the first two cases the reference is to Gita, in the third case to Manu and in the last case to Bhagavata. let A occurs thrice. In the first place it refers to Katha and Svetasvatara, in the last two places the reference is to Bhagavata.

14. Cf, Anubhasya On. 8 ILL 2.37, 111.3 विद्वनमण्डन 99. 106, 107, ००.

15. Samkara first. explains the Sutra naturally and then introduces his own theory by remarking A4AATITS: and therein upses everything that he has said before. Vitthala also does the same thing 1n his Bhasya.

16. भक्तिहंस quoted in 116 3135५9 ०7 ब्रै सू त1.3.3.

 

Turning to the external evidence, we find that Vitthala in his विद्वन्मण्डन refers to his own Bhasya on particular Sutras. 19 This would be meaningless unless we suppose that part of the Bhasya was written by him.

Moreover, almost all the commentators of Anubhasya from the learned Purusottamji (born 1668 AD) down to Giridharji (born 1791 A. D.) remark in their commentaries on to Anubhasya on. WH @ 111.2.84 that the Bhasya from that Sutra up to the end has been written by Vitthala. 20 Yogi Gopesvarji (born 1780 A.D.), the writer of WA a commentary on Purusottamji's, WhT9T gives new introductory verses 21 in his —

3.3 विद्वन्मण्डन quoted in the Bhasya on. HW @ II. 2 41 111 354, IV. 2. 16, IV. 4.14, IV. 4.17.

 

17. In the Bhasya on A @ IIL. 2.41.

18. Vallabha died in 1531 AD while Vitthala was born in 1515 A.D.

19. ५1॥॥919 11775211 589५5 इदं तु यथा परात्तु तच्छुतेरित्यधिकरणे निरुपयिष्याम: । (विद्वन्मण्डन. 56.)

20. Purusottamji in his WATT remarks as $A WIR A WUT (sitfagerar_) sft wiasaift | Anubhasya with

WRT p. 969 (Benares edition)

21. प्र वाज्ञात्रयभाविनी गतिमिहोद्धाव्याशु तत्त्वानुगसार्धाध्याययुगं चक्रार रहितं (सूत्राष्टकरहितम्‌) स्वाचार्यवर्य: स्वयम्‌ ।

शेष॑ सूचितमित्यतो<न्यदपि निर्मातु प्रवृत्तस्तत

स्तन्न्यूनप्रतिपूरको विजयते श्रीवि्ठुलो दीक्षित: ।। १ ॥।

The double authorship of Anubhasya 61]

WA on the ब्रहमसत्रभाष्यप्रकाश ० का, 2. 34, शाशशा he distinctly says that the Bhasya henceforth has come from the pen of Vitthala. Krsnachandra (born in the first half of the seventeenth century).the author of भावप्रकाशिका, 8 summary of Anubhasya. endorses the same view. 22 Purusottamy! 1n his आवरणभंग, ७ commentary on Vallabha's WraetATaA-eI_ more than once refers to Vitthala's portion of the Bhasya 23.

श्रौतं स्मार्त प्रमेयं यद्ध्धिन्नमित्येव संस्थितम्‌ ।

ACHAT Vat a: श्रीविद्ुलदीक्षित: ।। २॥।

तद्वाष्यं प्रथितुं स्वज्ञो वावदीति जनः कथम्‌ ।

तथापि वच्चमि तत्त्वं तच्चरणैकनिविष्ट्धी: ।। ३ ॥।

Gopesvarji धिा० 10791 तदेतत्पूरयितुं श्रीविद्ठुलदीक्षिता: 'स्थानविशेषात्प्रकाशादिव ' इति सूत्रादार य भाष्यमारभन्ते ।

22 इत आर य प्रभूणां लेख इति प्रतिभाति । भावप्रकाशिका ०0 1. 3.34.

23. इदं यथा तथा प्रपच्चितं साधनाध्याये हानौ तूपायने त्यधिकरणे प्रभुभिः (श्रीविट्ठलैः) (आवरणभंग तत्त्वदीपनिबन्ध 9.6). Benares edition).

24. Almost all the works of Vallabha have got double editions, e.g. सूक्ष्मटीका and सुबोधिनी commentaries on Bhagavata, the former small, the latter big WTI and निबन्ध ४

 

The last evidence 1s historical. From Vallabha's references. in his सुबोधिनी to the interpretations of the Sutras-interpretations not to be found in the present text of the Anubhasya we are led to believe that Vallabha must have written a big Bhasya on the Brahma-sutras and must have later on summarised it in the form of Anubhasya and this 1s quite possible when we see that Vallabha 1s in the habit- of giving small and big editions of his works 54 The very name Anubhasya (=a small Bhasya) suggests the same thing. All the original MSS. of Vallabha's works came into the possession of Gopinathy1. Vallabha's eldest son, after the death of the father. Gopinathji died 1n about 1564 A.D. and was soon followed by his only son Purusottama -an incident which made the widow or Gopinathj1 turn mad.

Owing to the mental derangement, she had a quarrel with Vitthala, Vallabha's second son, and did not give any MSS. to him. Vitthala tried his level best to secure the MSS. of his father but succeeded in getting a fragment of the Anubhashya up to II!. 2.33 together with the MSS. of- other works. Seeing the Bhashya incomplete he thought himself duty bound to complete it and he did it accordingly. It is needless to mention that the big Bhashya of Vallabha is now irretrievably lost.

It is now clear from the external and internal evidence that the Anubhashya has been written by Vallabhacharya and his son Vitthalesa that the latter's Bhashya begins from III. 2.34 and that Vallabha's Bhashya came to an abrupt end on account of the loss of original MSS. due to the family quarrel. It can therefore be held, without any fear of contradiction, that there is double authorship of Anubhashya. 25

 

25. When this paper was being written a regular manuscript of the same portion of the fourth j´Â´ in the very handwriting of çßnÜðEÚ was shown by the head ×ãæÚæÁ of ÙæÍmæÚ to prof. Shastri, in the year 1928 and therefore the fact that the fourth j´Â´ is the work of BèçßnÜðEÚ being corroborated by lÙh´%lٳ‚ is no more a matter of further inference of other lower evidences