अणुभाष्य (महाप्रभु वल्लभाचार्य - शुद्धाद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र महाभाष्य प्रकाश टीका सहित)

( 27 ) 4. It was he who obtained the fourth अध्याय of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी's अधिकरणमाला from the Deccan College Bhandarkar Institute, and published it. योगी श्रीगोपेश्वरजी could not get it, and so he wrote out the fourth अध्याय himself, which also has been printed in the appendix, thus facilitating a comparison between the writings of two master-minds. 5. A copy of some portion of बृहद्भाष्य was found many years ago, and published in पुष्टिभक्तिसुधा. It was well-known then to every student that this contained words, phrases and sentences which were also found in प्रकाश and वृत्ति. The portion was published for what it was worth for the information of the public. The matter rested there for several years. Two or three years ago, Mulchandra got a rough draft* of the same portion of the बृहद्भाष्य, and he had no difficulty in tracing it to रामकृष्णभट्ट, the learned शास्त्री of काशीस्थ श्रीगिरिधरजी, and the टीकाकार of श्रुतिरहस्य. In the introduction to भाष्यप्रकाशरश्मि ३-१-१ published in samvat 1982, Mulchandra wrote on p. 12 as under:—"In conclusion we ought not to omit reference to one work which passes in the name of श्रीमद्भाष्य of S'ri Vallabhāchārya. Some passages of the जिज्ञासाधिकरण and the first Pāda of the third Adhyāya and 11 Sūtras of the second Pāda have been seen by us. The portion from the third Adhyāya has been published by us in the monthly Pushti Bhakti-Sudhā. From the style, this seems to be a clumsy attempt of a writer of recent times. All copies seen by us are new. The style is such as leaves little doubt in our minds as to the spurious nature of this production". Notwithstanding this, Mr. Jethalal Shah, who has recently pub- lished अनुवाद of १-२ अध्यायs writes, in his introduction on p. 9, “...સદ્‌ગત તેલીવાલા એવું માને છે કે શ્રીવલ્લભાચાર્યે બ્રહ્મસૂત્ર ઉપર બે ભાષ્ય રચ્યાં હતાં...તેના પુરાવા તરીકે પુષ્ટિભક્તિસુધાના વર્ષ ૬ માં પ્રકટ થયેલા લખાણને રજુ કરે છે અને તે પ્રકટ થયેલું લખાણ તે “શ્રીમદ્ભાષ્ય અગર બૃહદ્ભાષ્ય” છે.” To attribute to Teliwala what he deliberately considered "spurious" is misrepresenting a departed scholar, misleading oneself and misleading the public. His conclusion which he puts in bold type on p. 16. “પાછળથી કૃષ્ણ- ચન્દ્રજીએ બૃહદ્ભાષ્ય રચ્યું હશે” is also due to ignorance. To say that अणुभाष्य derives its name from the अणुत्व of जीव is absurd, because the जिज्ञासा is not जीवजिज्ञासा, but ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा, and the अणुभाष्य is not जीवसूत्राणुभाष्य, but ब्रह्मसूत्राणुभाष्य. The present requirements of the सम्प्रदाय are not arguments based on antiquated opinions, but investigation and research which would throw more light on the सम्प्रदाय. 6. It was he who identified a manuscript of सुबोधिनी now at Dabhoi, as originally belonging to श्रीदामोदरलालजी, son of श्रीगिरिधरजी, the eldest son of श्रीगुसांईजी. The additions made by श्रीगुसांईजी to सुबोधिनी are put into brackets in this manu- script. While reading सुबोधिनी, it was found difficult to establish any connec- tion between some sentences, which difficulty is removed by श्रीगुसांईजी's additions being thus separated. The तामसफलप्रकरण is published from this manuscript, by Mulchandra. 7. The idea of collecting all the टीकाs on षोडशग्रन्थs and publishing them together was his; he successfully carried it out, and helped चीमनशास्त्री and हरिकृष्णशास्त्री with manuscripts to complete the series.

• The draft is with us at present. 2027