Vallabhacharya's Anubhashya

Vallabhacharya, the advocate or the Shuddhadvaita vedanta, has written a commentary on the Brahmasutras, known as Anubhashya. It is proposed to point out the significance of the title Anubhashya in this short article.

There have been some explanations of the term Anubhashya offered by scholars. Some are or the opinion that the commentary is so called because the size of the soul as described in the Brahmasutras and the commentary is, according to Vallabhacharya, atomic (anu). Others hold the view that Vallabhacharya has accepted the word-testimony (Sabda-pramana of the Vedas) as most authoritative and, therefore, followed it most scrupulously and consequently the commentary goes under the name or Anubhashya. 2 The word Anu in the title Anubhashya is derived by these thinkers from val1 'to sound' (fabde). They thus try to show that the Bhashya of Vallabhacharya is rightly called A'.Jubh IfYa as it is absolutely based on the abdaprama'.Ja. Therc is also another view that Vallabhacharya has given the. title or A'.JubhaiYa to his commentary simply out of modesty, suggesting thereby that the attempt is very humble.3

A critical study of the works or the schools of Madhvacharya and Vallabhacharya clearly shows that the three views mentioned above are not correct and that the proper explanation of the term Anubhashya is to be found somewhere else.

Regarding the first view it should be noted that Vallabhacharya is not the only Acharya to accept the size of the soul as atomic. All other Vaishnava Acharyas are or the same view. The atomic size of the soul is, therefore. not a doctrine quite peculiar to the system of Vallabhacharya; and in these circumstances there cannot be any justification for giving the title Anubhashya to the commentary merely on the strength of a feature common to other schools of the Vedanta, The view is, therefore, unacceptable.

1 J. G: Shah: A Primer of Anubhashya, pp: 11-17.

2 H.O. Shastri: Piyusapatrika.

3 Some modern scholars.

The second view is no doubt ingenious and appears to give credit to Vallabhacharya. But the case is not really so strong as it appears to be at the outset. A study of the different schools of Vedanta shows that all the Vaishnava Acharyas have accepted the Shabda-praman as the highest authority and interpreted the. Shruti passages in that light; Even Shankaracharya, who is more of a philosopher than of a theologian and is, therefore, naturally expected to take a different stand, states very often that the Shabda-pramana enjoys the highest authority in the discussion of philosophical problems. The objection that has been raised to the first view therefore hold good even in the second case. A Phenomenon which is common to several school of thought can never be considered as a distinguishing feature of a particular school. The second view is, therefore, rejected as unconvincing.

The third view is comparatively stronger than the other two views. But in the light of the evidence from the work of Vallabhacharya it has to be dismissed in favour of the view based on the available data.

4 Tattvarthadipnibandha, Shastrartha Prakarana, v. 5 and the Prakasha thereon.

5 G. H. Bhatt: The Double Authorship of Anubhashya, Proceed- in of the Fourth Oriental Conference V 01. II, pp. 799-806

Vallabhacharya himself remarks that he composed the Bhashyas on the Purva and the Uttara Mimamsa Sutras.4 It has been shown that the Anubhashya up to III. 2 33 (inclusive) is from the pen of Vallabhacharya and the remaining portion from that of his second son, Vitthalanatha. 5 The abrupt end of the Anubhashya at 111.2.33 and not at the Pada (111.2. 4]) seems to be most unnatural. In all probability Vallabhacharya wrote the Anubhashya on all the sutras of the Brahma-sutra. But after his death the widow of his first son, Gopinatha; quarrelled with his second son; Vitthalanatha. and taking away some of the common property including the Mss. went away to her father's place. It may be that the folios of the Anubhashya from 1II.2.34 up to the end of the Brahmasutra and many other works might have been taken away by the widow, and Vitthalanatha might have rightly thought of finishing the work of his father. The present Anubhashya, therefore, happens to be the work of the father and the son.

Like a true thinker Vallabhacharya approaches all problems both synthetically and analytically, and thereby does fun justice to the subject. His interpretation of the Bhagavat consequently appears in the analytical and synthetic forms, the first in his commentary Subodhini on the Bhagvata and the second in his work, Bhagvatarth-Nibandha. He also wrote a brief commentary on the Bhagavata, called Suksana tika which is unfortunately not available in Toto. He has also summarised his doctrines most briefly in sixteen short treatises. Vallabhacharya thus gives two editions of his works, one small and the other big. In the same spirit he composed an extensive commentary on the Brahmasutras which might have been called Bhashya or Brihadhhashya, and a brief one called Anubhashya. A parallel example is found in the literary history of the school of Madhvacharya. Madhvacharya, as is well known, composed four works as commentaries on the Brahma-sutras, viz. (1) Bhashya, (2) Anubhashya or Anuvyakhyana, (3)Anuvyakhyanavivarana and (4) Anubhashya Fortunately these works are available and show that the second work Anubhashya, or Anuvyakhyana as it is -otherwise known, is com- posed after the Bhashya with a view to explain the points at length and the last work, Anubhashya, is a very brief-summary or the Bhashya.8 Vallabhacharya seems to be aware of the works of Madhvacharya and has actually quoted in the Anubhashya (11. 1. 1) a verse 9 from Madhvacharya's Anubhashya (11). It is thus Obvious that Vallabhacharya who received inspiration from the work of Madhvacharya called his minor Bhashya as Anubhashya in imitation of the Anubhashya of Madhvacharya, indicating that it was merely a brief commentary. The title Anubhashya, therefore, merely suggests the idea of brevity.

6 These works are published by T.R Krishnacharya, Madhva Vilas.Book Depot, Kumbhakontam. s. N. Dagupta in his work: A History of an Indian Philosophy, Vol. IV, pp. 61-62. has wrongly distinguished Anubhashya from _ Anuvyakhyana: Possibly by cofounding Anubhashya with Anuvyakhyana

It is a pity that the big Bhashya of Vallabhacharya is not at. all available at present, and for this loss the widow of the first son should be held responsible. That the Acharya act ally wrote such a Bhashya is quite clear from some of his own statements.

Vallabhacharya remarks in the Anubhashya on I. I. 2. that the problem of avirbhava and tirobhava will be discussed later on in II. l. 1.5.10 Curiously enough there is no reference to this topic in the Anubhashya on II. I. I. Evidently the discussion of this problem might have appeared in the big Bhashya. The Acharya, again, remarks in the Prakasha on the Shastrarth Prakarana, V 9.i, that the Samkhya doctrine is refuted at great length in the Bhashya on ll. I. 2.11 The Anubhashya on 11. I. 2 consists of only one line and there is no refutation, even in brief, of the Samkhya system. This statement of Vallabhacharya shows that he has got his big Bhashya in view..t the time of writing the Prakasha on the Sarvanirnayaprakarana Later on, the Acharya remarks in his Prakasha on Sarvanirnayaaprakarana, v. 177 that he subjects has been discussed at length in the Bhashya on 11. I. 22.12 The Anubhashya on 11. I. 22 gives the argument in one line only, and this can hardly be called a lengthy discussion of the problem. This naturally shows that the long discussion referred to by the Acharya must have appeared in his big Bhashya on the Brahmasutra. There is also another significant remark of Vallabhacharya that sixteen attributes of the Lord have been described in the sixteen Adhikaranas in the Brahmasutras 111. 3 13 As there is Rio reference to this in the present Anubhashya one is red to believe that the discussion might have appeared in the big Bhashya or the Anubhashya composed by the Acharya himself. Moreover, whenever, the Acharya makes a reference to his commentary on the Brahmasutras he mentions the word Bhashya and not. Anubhashya 14 a fact which suggests that the Anubhashya might have been one of the last works of the Acharya. Madhvacharya also wrote the Anubhashya after his three commentaries on the Brahma- sutras.

There is a fragment of a commentary on the Brahma-sutras from.III. I. 1. to III. 2 12, published in 1916 A.D. in the magazine Pushtibhaktisudha now defunct, under the name of Brahrnasuttra-Shrimad-Bhashyam attributed to

Vallabhacharya. 15 The editor of this commentary, the late Mr. M. T. Telivala, further remarks that he actually saw some pages of the commentary on 1. 1. 1 also, not published at yet 16 This commentary was hailed with great joy as the Brihad-Bhashya of Vallabhacharya. But in fact it is not so. A comparative study of this commentary and Purushottamaji's Prakasha, a commentary on Vallabhacharya's Anubhashya, clearly shows that the so-called Shrimad-Bhashya of Vallabhacharya is.simply a case of plagiarism of a modern writer. The author has freely borrowed from Purushottamji's Prakasha without. acknowledgement. The style of the Shrimad-Bhashya is again, absolutely different from that of Vallabhacharya. It seems that some learned follower of Vallabhacharyas School, of the eighteenth or 19th century 17 thought the Vallabhacharya must have composed an extensive Bhashya. over and above the Anubhashya and that a new Bhashya to be called Sirmad-Bhashya should be written in the name of Vallabhacharya as the original Bhashya was not available. We are, no doubt, thankful to this modern writer for his pious wish of filling up the gap. But it must be admitted in the interest of Truth that the so-called Shrimad Bhashya is not written by Vallabhacharya.

IX