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

An accurate, line-by-line transcription of the page:

(1) प्रकृतिपर एवाधि. p. 2. L. 1. र. It would be better to read this as प्रकृतिपरमात्माधि.
This would yield very good sense. The only difficulty in this way of
reading is that we have to add मा after पर which is not found in the original.
The omission of मा seems to be due to the slip of pen.
(2) शोधयति. p. 2. L. 1. र. The original reads शोधति. This also is correct. धातूनां
भ्वादित्वादनेककार्यत्वान्निखलत्वात् शोधतिप्रयोगोपि साधुः ।
(3) वा अन्तरे. p. 14. L. 1. भा. One old Mss. reads अवान्तरे.
(4) अपेक्ष्यते. p. 14. L. 3. भा. अपेक्षते seems to be the reading. अपेक्षन्ते seems to be
a change suggested by भूतानि.
(5) गौणत्वम्. p. 15. L. 8. प्र. Can it be न गौणत्वम् ?. One न seems to be missing here.
(

INTRODUCTION.
S'rī Vallabhacharya And His Aṇu-Bhāshya.
S'rīmad Vallabhacharya, the author of the 'Aṇu Bhashya', was born on
the 11th day of the dark half of Chaitra, 1535 Samvat, (1479. A. D.), in the
forest of Champa near Raipur. His father was Lakshmaṇa Bhatta, and
Yallammagaru was his mother. He was a Telagu Brahmin studying the
Taitirīya S'ākhā of the Black Yajur-Veda. Vallabha's birth is shrouded in the
mysteries of the devotional beliefs of his followers, but one thing is certain that
his followers believed that he was commissioned by God to inaugurate a great
religious revival in India. From the writings of Vallabha which are available
now, we can say that this belief was shared by himself also. It is not an
uncommon phenomenon in India. Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Chaitanya,
and several other great teachers did believe in their special messages to the
world. Vallabha's ancestors were Deekshitas, and were devoted to Krishna in
the form of Gopāla. The Swarūpa of Madana-Mohanji in the Seventh Pītha
is the one which came to him from his Sixth ancestor Yajna Narayana Bhatta.
It is possible that Vallabha's father Lakshmaṇa Bhatta and his ancestors were
the Upāsakas of Gopāla according to the cult of Vishṇuswami. The early
years of Vallabha were passed by him with his father at Benares, where he is
said to have mastered all the Vedas, Six Dars'anas, and all schools of Āstika
and Nāstika thinkers. He studied the S'aiva and Vaishṇava Āgamas. When
Vallabha was comparatively young, his father died. Vallabha wanted to study
the Vaishṇava systems of Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka and others, and
seeing that they were not prevalent there, in order to have direct knowledge,
he is said to have proceeded to the South. Vallabha's desire to go to the south
of India was very natural. During that time there was the powerful Hindu
kingdom of Vijaya-Nagar or Vidya-Nagar, over which ruled the mighty
monarch Krishṇadeva-Raya, himself a great Vaishṇava. During his time, it
seems a convention was held of the representatives of all the existing Sampra-
dāyas. The session seems to have been going on when Vallabha visited Vijaya-
Nagar. The main dispute seems to have been between Vyāsa Tīrtha, the
Mādhva, and some representative of Mayavadins. It seems also clear that
the Dwaita philosophy of the Mādhvas could not hold its own against the
attacks of S'ānkaras. At this juncture Vallabha seems to have baffled all by
his great learning and powerful arguments. We see no reason to doubt this
fact. The author of a recently discovered work Vyāsa-Yoga-Charitam, from
Vyāsa Raya Matha, does chronicle the fact that Vallabhacharya was honoured
by the king Krishṇadeva Raya, under the presidentship of the then famous
Mādhva Swami Vyasa Tīrtha. Vallabha's position was peculiar. He accepted
Adwaita pure and simple without the interference of the Māyāvāda of S'ankara;
hence all the attacks advanced by Mādhvas and others against Advaita lost
their force as against him. His acceptance of 'शुद्धाद्वैत' disarmed the opposi-
tion of both Vaishṇavas and S'ānkaras. The position taken up by Vallabha

( 4 )
was not altogether singular. We believe that Narayana Bhatta, the author of
the famous drama Veṇisanhara, was the follower of a system of philosophy
which combined in itself the Pure Adwaita of the Upanishads and the Bhakti-
Mārga. Whatever that may be, it is certain that Vallabha made a very great
impression on king Krishṇadeva, Vyasa-Tīrtha and others who were present
there. In consequence of this session, the king performed a ‘Kanakābhisheka’
with Hundred Maunds of Gold. It is said that Vallabha did not accept
this gold and resumed his travels. This abstinence on the part of Vallabha
added to the admiration of all those present there. Vyāsa-Tīrtha, the
Mādhva, actually requested him to be the head-priest of his Maṭha after
him. Vyāsa-Tīrtha with king Krishṇadeva again approached Vallabha and
presented him with a good many valuables. From these presents Vallabha is
said to have prepared a gold Mekhala set with diamonds, rubies etc., and
presented the same to S'rī Vitthala in the Vitthala Swami Temple at Vijaya-
Nagara. Ultimately, it appears, Vallabha could not conscientiously accept the
offer of Vyāsa-Tīrtha, but from this time Vallabha came to be regarded as a
great Acharya.
During his visit to Vraja, Vallabha set up the Shrine of S'rī Nathaji on
the holy hill Govardhana in a temple built for that purpose by one Purṇa
Malla Kshatriya. There Vallabhacharya used to pass his Chātur-Māsa i. e.
Āshādha S'ukla eleventh to Kārtika S'ukla eleventh every year. Here he
developed the asthetic side of Vaishṇavism by refining and perfecting the
mode of worship Sevā-Mārga. During his stay in Vraja, on the midnight
of 11th day of the bright half of S'rāvaṇa, he says he had holy communion
with Lord Krishṇa, who commanded him to initiate Jīvas in His Service. This
initiation consists of two parts: one is the formula to be repeated by the aspirant
before the deity by holding Tulsi-leaves in hand and afterwards placing the
same at the feet of the deity through Acharya, and the other part is the effect
of the same, on the devotee, by which he becomes the Adhikari in the Sevā-
Marga of Lord S'rī Krishna. He married one Mahalakshmi. He had two sons
by her viz. S'rī Gopinatha and S'rī Vitthalanatha under whom the Sampradaya
flourished considerably.
While he was staying in the north of India, Vallabhāchārya came into
contact with Kes'ava Kas'mirin, the famous Nimbarka scholar, and Chaitanya,
the Bengal Saint. They were both Krishṇopasakas, and it seems from Sampra-
dayika Gathas that their relations were very cordial. Kes'ava presented his
pupil Madhava Bhatta Kas'mirin to Vallabha in Dakshiṇa of भागवतकथाश्रवण.
He became his devout disciple, and during his whole life acted as the amanuensis
of S'rī Vallabha. It seems that during Madhava Bhatta's stay with him at
Adel, Vallabha composed his numerous works. During that interval Vallabha
wrote Purva Mīmānsā-Bhashya, Brahma-Sūtra Bhashya, Tattvadīpa-Nibandha
with his own commentary, Sūkshma tīkā and Subodhini on S'rīmad Bhāgavata,
and the sixteen Prakaraṇa Granthas giving in brief the essence of his views.
It is really unfortunate that only a fragment of his Pūrva Mīmānsā Bhashya
is available now. Aṇu Bhashya, as we have it now, is not wholly written by him.
1524

( 5 )
The last Adhyāya and a half of the Bhashya is finished by his son Vitthale-
s'wara. Sūkshma tīkā is almost lost. Even Pushti-Pravaha-Maryada-Bheda
one of the minor Prakaraņas, is not available as a whole. The Bhagavata-
Subodhini is available only on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th and a portion of 11th
Skandhas. It is probable that Vallabha wrote on all the Skandhas.
During his stay at Adel, after the completion of his Bhashya on पूर्वोत्तर-
मीमांसाs, he seems to have met with great opposition from the Mayavadi Pandits
of Benares. In order to silence them for ever, Vallabha wrote out a pamphlet
in mixed verse and prose, and affixed the same to the doors of Kās'ī Vis'vanātha,
with a challenge to Benares Pandits to refute the same, if they could. One
Upendra was the leader of the opposition. It seems this discussion ended into
threats of personal violence, as a consequence of which, Vallabha left Benares.
This work seems to have created a great stir in the world of scholars then
living. One Ayyanna Dikshita actually mentions it by name in his Vyasa-
Tatparya-Nirnaya. Ayyanna's seems to be a veiled attempt to belittle the
achievement of Vallabhacharya by propounding a principle though novel, far
from convincing, for finding out the true view of Vyasa. It would be
rather hazardous to say that the true view of Vyasa can be deter-
mined from the statements of the opponents. Assuming however that
it is so, the opponents mention both Parinama and Vivarta as the view of
Vyasa. Hence from the statements of opponent Sankhyas and Naiyayikas,
it is impossible to come to the conclusion that Vyasa teaches Vivarta alone in
his Brahma Sūtras.
The last portion of his life was passed at Adel. Here he finished his
works which were begun by him during his travels, and served Lord Krishna
with the love and devotion of Gopees, and founded his system on it. At the
age of 52 he burnt his Parņas'āla, joined the Sannyasa Ās'rama, and came to
Benares. For a month he observed fast, and for the last eight days he observed
मौनव्रत, and on the 2nd day of the bright half of Āshadha Samvat 1587, he
left this world mid-day.
S'rī Vallabhacharya gave permanent form to his views, which were pro-
pounded by him in the convention of king Krishnadeva of Vijayanagar, in his
commentaries on the Pūrva and Uttara Mīmānsas. From internal evidence
available from his writings which are extant, we have reason to believe that
he completed his Bhashya both on Pūrva and Uttara Mīmānsas. His mention
of ‘चकारात् मीमांसाद्वयभाष्यम्’ in his Prakās'a on the opening verses of his Tattvadīpa
Nibandha would rather suggest an accomplished fact. In numerous places in
the Subodhini (his commentary on Bhagavata) he refers to both the Bhashyas
as siddha-vastu-facts accomplished. ‘भावनापक्षश्च पूर्वमीमांसाभाष्य एव निराकृतः’ भा. सु. २. १. ५.
Similarly in ‘Veda Stuti Subodhini’ he refers to his Bhashya on the Brahma-
Sūtras ‘भाष्ये विस्तरेणोक्तत्वात्’. We do not find this alleged विस्तर in the Aņu Bhashya
as written by Vallabhacharya. In the Subodhini on 3. 4. 7. Vallabhacharya
writes ‘एतान्येव गुणोपसंहारे षोडशाधिकरण्या प्रतिपादितानि’. गुणोपसंहार is the 3rd Pada of the 3rd
1525

( 6 )

Adhyaya of the Brahama-Sutras. The mention by Vallabhacharya of 16 Adhika-
raṇas as referring to 16 adjectives leads us to the inference that he must have
written his commentary on the गुणोपसंहारपाद before he came to write his सुबोधिनी on
the 3rd स्कंध. In the Aṇu Bhashya we do not find any reference to these 16
विशेषणs. Nor was the Prakas'akara aware of this, when he first wrote his
commentary on this Pada-Bhashya. In the revision which he seems to have
made after he finished his तृतीयसुबोधिनीप्रकाश, he added this in his Prakās'a at the
end of each of sixteen Adhikaraṇas, as we find in the original. On a perusal of
the Aṇu Bhashya itself, we find that it is an abridgment of a bigger work on
Brahma-Sutras of Vallabhacharya. In the ईक्षत्यधिकरण there is no reference to
the refutation of सांख्यs, though in the beginning of the fourth Pada of the 1st
Adhyaya mention is made that सांख्य's theory is refuted in the ईक्षत्यधिकरण. In
one place it is mentioned that आविर्भावतिरोभाववाद will be explained in details in
the तदनन्यत्वाधिकरण, but there beyond the bare mention of the words आविर्भाव and
तिरोभाव, we do not find anything else. This is possible only in a work of the
nature of an analysis. Besides in सुबोधिनी we meet with references to Sūtras of 3rd
and 4th Adhyayas, and in some places we find the interpretation as given in
Subodhini different from the one found in अणुभाष्य. Of course there is no विरोध
or violence to the general views of Vallabhacharya, but difference there is. As an
instance we cite ‘जगद्व्यापारवर्जम्’ ४. ४. १७. ब्र. सू. The interpretation of this Sūtra
as given in Subodhini is to the effect that the ऐश्वर्य of the मुक्त Soul is unlimited in
all respects, except the power of creation etc. of the Universe. In Aṇu Bhāshya
on the same Sūtra, the question is discussed, whether there is any जगद्व्यापार or
सांसारिकता in लीलासृष्टि, and the same is denied. These facts lead us to the inference
that Vallabhacharya must have written an exhaustive commentary on the
Brahma Sūtras, and the Aṇu Bhashya which is available at present, is an analysis
or a smaller edition of that big work. The name ‘अणुभाष्य’ also supports our
inference. Almost all the works of Vallabhacharya have double editions, e. g., the
सूक्ष्मटीका and सुबोधिनी on S'ri Bhagavata, the निबन्ध and its प्रकाश. Hence it appears
that Vallabhacharya first completed his commentaries on पूर्व and उत्तर मीमांसाs. The
mention of this fact in his प्रकाश on निबन्ध can be explained on this hypothesis alone.
After the completion of these पूर्व and उत्तर मीमांसाभाष्यs they became prevalent
among the Pandits of Benares following the Bhātta school of Mimansa and मायावाद
of S'ankara. On account of this opposition Vallabhacharya had to come down
from Adel to Benares, and proclaim again his views on पूर्व and उत्तर मीमांसाs through
his पत्रावलंबन as mentioned above.
Vallabhacharya, during his stay of fifteen to twenty years at Adel, wrote
out all his works during the interval of अनवसर from Sevā. When he passed away,
his first son श्रीगोपीनाथ was about twenty, while the second son S'ri Vitthalanatha was
about fifteen. S'ri Gopinatha was in a position to get the benefit of his father's
teachings, but through unfortunate circumstances, the संप्रदाय could not get the bene-
fit of the knowledge of the Acharya's teachings, through him. S'ri Gopinatha
and S'ri Vitthalanatha were on extremely cordial terms, as found from the letters
passed between them. About Samvat 1620 or so S'ri Gopinatha left this world
at Juggannath Puri, and soon after, his only son S'ri Purushottama followed him.
1526

( 7 )
This unfortunate event embittered the feelings of the widow of S'rī Gopīnātha,
and as a result the original works of श्रीमद्वल्लभाचार्य were taken away by her. Under
these circumstances, श्रीविट्ठलनाथ tried his atmost to collect the writings of his father,
but it appears that he succeeded only in securing the fragment of Anu Bhashya,
but could not get the copy of the bigger or complete Bhashya. He had to satisfy
himself with the portion of अणुभाष्य which could be secured by him.
In Samvat 1622 S'rī Vitthalanath left Adel for good, and migrated to
S'rī Gokula, and adopted it as his permanent residence. During his stay at
श्रीगोकुल from 1622-1642 Samvat, he came in contact with Emperor Akbar, Birbal,
Todarmal, Rai Purshottama and others. Emperor Akbar made a gift of Gokula
and Jatipura villages to Vitthaleswar. Akbar in another of his Sanad gave him
permission to graze his cows on all lands including the royal ones also. It
appears from this time Vitthalanath, who was up to this time known as Vipra or
Dīkshita, came to be styled Goswami, a name by which all his agnate descendants
are known to this day. How much he loved S'rī Gokula and Govardhana can be
learnt from the description of the same in the Aṇu-Bhashya on 4. 2. 15. B. S.,
where it is placed above the Vyapi Vaikuntha, on the authority of a Rik. Here
he got perfect peace, and it was here that he completed the remaining portion
of the अणुभाष्य. Though we have not got Vallabhacharya's Bhashya on the last
Adhyaya and a half, the portion of the Bhashya as written by S'rī Vitthalanath
has admirably succeeded in bringing out the interpretation of his father on these
Sūtras. Thus the संप्रदाय has to depend on this Aṇu Bhashya as the final authority
on Brahma-Sūtras. The आचार्यत्व of the संप्रदाय, for this reason, has been attributed
by some to the father and son combined. Whatever that may be, the Aṇu-
Bhashya has been since then the chief authority of पुष्टिमार्गीय Vaishṇavas.
Vitthaleshwara passed away in Samvat 1642. After him Purushottamaji
is the first commentator on the Aṇu Bhashya.
S'rī Purushottamaji the author of Bhashya-Prakās'a was born on the
11th day of the bright half of Bhadrapada 1724 Samvat at Gokula. He is
Seventh in descent from S'rī Vallabhacharya. In his childhood he seems to
have come under the influence of two Scholars S'rī Krishna-Chandraji Maharaja
and Chacha S'rī Gopes'aji. The former was his grand uncle and also his
Guru (ब्रह्मसंबन्धदाता). Chacha Gopes'aji stood in a similar relation to him. Before
Purushottamaji, his guru S'rī Krishnachandraji had begun to critically study the
Aṇu Bhashya. His labours resulted in a rough draft of the Bhava-Prakasikā
and a fragment of the commentary of Guṇopasanhāra Pada of Aṇu Bhashya.
The latter has been completely incorporated by S'rī Purushottamaji in his
Bhashya-Prakās'a on that portion. The rough draft of Bhava-Prakas'ika
seems to have been utilised in the work current under that name in the Sam-
pradaya. The copy of the same in the hand of S'rī Purushottamaji seems to
be a revised version of the original. It summarises what is contained in the
Aṇu Bhashya and Bhashya-Prakāsa combined. Chacha Gopes'aji's influence
on Purushottamaji seems to be apparent on a comparison of the Ṭīkas of both
on the Subodhini of the Bhagavata first स्कन्ध. Almost the whole of Chacha
Gopes'aji's Tippani seems to be incorporated in his Prathama-Skandha-Prakās'a.
1527

( 8 )
Purushottamaji seems to have migrated from Gokula to Surat in
Gujarat with his uncle S'rī Vraja-Rajaji soon after 1737 Saṁvat. After this
date S'rī Vraja-Rajaji settled at Surat, where he raised the Haveli for S'rī Bala-
Krishnaji. Vraja-Rajaji was childless. He was a great scholar of the Prameya
School of the Sampradaya. From him S'rī Purushottamji got in inheritance
the Swarupa of S'rī Bala-Krishnaji with the Mandira. Purushottamaji ac-
knowledges this obligation in the opening verses of his Bhashya-Prakāsa.
Though Purushottamaji seems to entertain the greatest respect for S'rī Vraja-
Rajaji, the Prameya mode of thought of his uncle, does not seem to have appealed
to him. Purushottamaji's writings can be equally appreciated by both scholars
Sampradayikas and others.
Purushottamaji's literary activities continued at Surat and Dumas for
forty years and over. It seems that he did not live long after 1781 Samvat
second Ashadha Sudi 10th Thursday, on which day by a writing he bequeathed
all his property including the Swarūpas of S'rī Balakrishnaji and S'rī Vrajes'aji
with temples and everything to his namesake cousin.
Between the period of S'rī Vitthaleswara and S'rī Purushottamaji, Aṇu-
Bhashya does not seem to have received requisite attention. Some of the des-
cendants of S'rī Vitthaleshwara might have read the Aṇu-Bhashya here and
there, but the absence of any commentary during almost a century, would rather
suggest that sufficient attention was not bestowed on the study of the Aṇu-
Bhashya. S'rī Hari Rayaji the illustrious descendent of Vitthaleswara did copy out
Aṇu-Bhashya in his own hand, but being extremely emotional, he has not chosen
to write anything like a commentary, on the Aṇu-Bhashya. When Purushottamaji
approached Aṇu-Bhashya for his studies, in the absence of any tradition, he felt
himself baffled, as can be seen from the concluding verse of the Bhashya-Prakas'a
'संप्रदाये निवृत्ते'. It was a question to him as to how he should find out a mode by
which he can thoroughly master Aṇu-Bhashya. Fortunately for him, there was
his Guru S'rī Krishṇa Chandraji, another descendant of Vallabhacharya. It is
possible that the seed of comparative study was sown in Purushottamaji by
S'rī Krishṇa-Chandraji.
Through his inspiration S'rī Purushottamaji, it would seem, thought of
undertaking the herculean task of studing all the Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāshyas that
were available in his times. Being a Goswami himself, there was no dearth of
riches, and in a city like Surat where he lived, materials were ample. With the
help of these riches, it seems, he secured not only authentic texts of all the
Bhashyas, but he seems to have collected round him a band of scholars of those vari-
ous schools, so that he could be in a position to understand those Bhashyas in their
true perspective. With this equipment S'rī Purushottamaji approached the Aṇu-
Bhashya, and his masterly review of the systems of शंकर, रामानुज, भास्कर, मध्व, निम्बु,
and शैव is unparalleled in the history of Vedanta literature. Great scholars like
सुदर्शन, जयतीर्थ, वाचस्पतिमिश्र, had written commentaries on the Bhashyas of their
respective Acharyas, but nowhere do we find the critical and comparative method
such as adopted by S'rī Purushottamaji in the exposition of the Aṇu-Bhashya.
1528

( 9 )
From the time of S'rī Purushottamaji Sampradayika scholars began to
devote their attention to the study of the Aṇu-Bhāshya. Different scholars began
to study the Aṇu-Bhāshya, and expound the same in their commentaries from
diverse standpoints. S'rī Mathuranāthaji and S'rī Muralīdharaji both descendants
of S'rī Vallabhacharya belonged to the house of S'rī Gopīnātha Dīkshita. Both
of them were great Mīmāṁsakas. They have written commentaries on the Aṇu-
Bhāshya independantly of S'rī Purushottamaji. In their commentaries they
display their great hold over the Mīmāṁsā school of philosophy. The com-
mentary written by S'rī Mathuranāthji is called प्रकाश, while that written by
S'rī Muralīdharaji is named सिद्धान्तप्रदीप. S'rī Mathuranāthaji's commentary has
not been in print at all upto this day, while S'rī Muralīdharji's commentary on the
first three Sūtras has been published by S'astri Ramanātha in

( 10 )

the seat for nearly fifty years, and when she found herself unable to carry on the
Sevā, in Samvat 1841, she adopted S'rī Gokulotsavaji. This incident was a very
beneficial one in the cause of the literary activity of the Sampradaya. Through
S'rī Gokulotsavaji his son Yogi Gopes'waraji got the rich treasures of authentic
collection of manuscripts of S'rī Purushottamaji. Thus it would not be wrong to
say that S'rī Gopes'varaji acquired the literary inheritance of S'rī Purushottamaji.
Miraculous powers are attributed to him by Sampradayika Gathas, but we are
not concerned with the same at present. On account of his extreme devotion
to the नाम and स्वरूप of God, and his aversion to anything worldly, he was fitly
called by his contemporaries as योगी. He was an all-round scholar. We have
seen his draft of the commentery on the पूर्वमीमांसासूत्रs. His नवार्थी, a commentary
on the तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्, awaits publication. He felt himself conscious of his knowledge
of the world beyond. This explains why he styles himself संपूर्णवेत्तृ from the
3rd or 4th Pada of First Adhyāya of रश्मि. At the end of रश्मि he writes about
himself thus-'प्रज्ञावान् कृतकृत्यश्च हरीश्वरज्ञः एव च, प्रमाणज्ञः कृतज्ञश्च', and we think that a perusal
of the रश्मि and the नवार्थी, would lead us to completly agree with what he himself
has expressed. He seems to have passed away not long after the completion
of रश्मि i. e. Samvat. 1897.
The author of रश्मि thoroughly explains not only the भाष्यप्रकाश of S'rī
Purushottamaji, but even supplies the want, which was felt by the readers
of प्रकाश. प्रकाशकार took for granted, that readers of Aṇu Bhashya, understood
the literal sense of the Aṇu Bhashya, and hence we rarely find him explaining
the literal text of the Aṇu Bhashya. For this reason, the author of रश्मि, in all
places where he finds, that S'rī Purushottamji has not explained Aṇu Bhashya,
tries to give the literal meaning of all the passages of the Aṇu Bhashya.
श्रीगोपेश्वरजी was a great master, and after him one of his pupils S'rī Giridharjī
of Benares, also a descendant of S'rī Vallabhacharya, wrote a commentary on the
Aṇu Bhashya. This commentary is purely based on the प्रकाश of S'rī Puru-
shottamaji, and explains the Aṇubhashya literally. S'rī Giridharaji was a
grammarian, and so we find him in this commentary displaying his mastery over
grammar. Another merit of this commentary lies in the fact, that in the beginning
of each अधिकरण, it gives the complete विषयवाक्य. So that it clears the reading of the
Upanishats, according to S'rī Vallabhacharya. He has divided Aṇu Bhashya
into paragraphs, but the chief merit of his commentary lies in its discussion
of the various readings of the Aṇu Bhashya throughout. This commentary is
complete, but it has remained upto this day in Manuscripts. S'āstri Haris'ankara
Aunkarji has recently undertaken to bring out the edition of Aṇu Bhashya
with this commentary under the patronage of S'rī Muralidharaji Maharaja of
Benares, the grandson of S'rī Giridharaji.
Itchharam Bhattaji a S'rimali Brahmin of Gujarat was also a contem-
porary of योगी श्रीगोपेश्वरजी. He was a devotee of S'rī Ranchhodaray of Dakore,
and he lived on the banks of Gomati, in a cell, where he wrote his commentary
called प्रदीप on the Aṇu Bhashya. This is a complete commentary. There is no
attempt as such, for a display of scholasticism. He explains the literal text

1530

( 11 )

of the Aṇu Bhashya in such a way, as would enable even a biginner to
follow it with little difficulty. The whole Manuscript of this work, in
the author's own hand, was seen by us in the collection of the Bade S'rī Mathu-
res'ajis temple at Kotah. It is really unfortunate that Prof. Magnalal Sāstri
who has been publishing the Aṇu Bhashya with this commentary, does not
try to get the use of this original Manuscript. Two other commentaries one by
S'rī Giris'adharaji, and another of one Ramanarayana are also said to exist.
In addition to these, two वृत्तिs explain the न्यायसूत्रs of Badarayana on the basis
of Aṇu Bhashya. One is the भावप्रकाशिकावृत्ति of S'rī Krishṇachandraji, mentioned
above. This वृत्ति is bigger than अणुभाष्य. It seems to be the summary of अणुभाष्य
and भाष्यप्रकाश combined. The last three अध्यायs of this वृत्ति are with us, written
in the hand of S'rī Purushottamaji, and from the mode in which this Manuscript
is written, and from the remark on the last page 'इयं वृत्तिः गोस्वामिपुरुषोत्तमैः स्वसुतन्नाम्ना कृता
इति श्रुतम्', we are tempted to attribute the authorship of this work to S'rī
Purushottamaji himself. At least the final form to this वृत्ति, was undoubtedly
given by S'rī Purushottamaji. Two अध्यायs of this वृत्ति have been published by us,
and the remaining two are in the press. Another वृत्ति is written by one Bhatta
Vrajanatha, a descendant from the female side of S'rī Vallabhacharya, at the
intance of king Jayasinha of Jaipur. It is a small one explaining the सूत्रs in
the light of Aṇu Bhashya, but in some places the author seems to be influenced
by the चैतन्य school, and to that extent its authencity is lessened. It is named
मरीचिका. In addition to these, there is one nameless Vṛitti also.
Besides these, there are two small works, what are known as अधिकरणमालाs.
After S'rī Purushottamaji completed his भाष्यप्रकाश, he found from experience,
that it was a difficult thing for ordinary people to follow. Hence in order to
benefit them, he wrote out this न्यायमाला, wherein he has suscintly explained all
the अधिकरणs and सूत्रs of Badarayana.
The other work was written by one निर्भररामभट्ट a Nagar Brahmin and
a pupil of बल्लभभट्ट. He was the मुख्यप्रचारक in the temple of S'rī Dwarakanathaji at
Kankroli, during the time of S'rī Vrijabhushaṇaji, in Samvat 1835. He has
summarised the purport of all the अधिकरणs according to Aṇu Bhashya in a
simple manner. Both the treatises are already published.
In addition to this there is one Aṇu Bhashya Tattva in S'rī Mathureshaj i's
library at Kotah. This work has somehow remained unknown in the Sampra-
daya. One वल्लभदेव has written वेदान्तकौमुदी to explain sutras of Badarayana
according to Aṇu Bhashya. One S'rī Vrajanathaji son of S'rī Raghunathaji
and pupil of वल्लभजी belonging to चन्द्रमाजी's house has written the meaning of
अधिकरणs in Karikas. Some Karikas on Aṇu Bhāshya were composed by S'rī
Devakinandanaji, the grandson of विट्ठलनाथदीक्षित.
Thus the descendants of the seven sons of S'rī Vitthalanatha Dikshita have
devoted their attention to the Aṇu Bhashya. S'rī Mathuranatha and S'rī
Muralidharaji were the descendants of S'rī Giridharaji, the first son of S'rī
Vitthales'a. In the second son Govindaraya's line, we have S'rī Harirayaji and
S'rī Gopes'waraji, the author of Ras'mi. In the 3rd son S'rī Balakrishṇaji's line
1531

( 12 )

we have S'ri Krishnachandraji, and his worthy disciple S'ri Purushottamaji, the
author of the भाष्यप्रकाश. The fourth son S'ri Gokulanathaji's line became extinct
soon after him, and we have not got materials to learn how Aṇu Bhashya was
understood by him. In the fifth son S'ri Raghunathaji's line, we have S'ri
Devakinandanaji तत्त्वदीपिकाकार S'ri Vallabhaji, while S'ri Giridharaji of Benares
was a representative of the sixth son S'ri Yadunathaji. The seventh son S'ri
Ghanshyamaji had one representative Chacha S'ri Gopes'aji. He has not
written on Aṇu Bhashya, so far as we know, but we can learn his views from his
commentaries on the 1st and 2nd स्कंध of the Subodhini. Thus from the time of
S'ri Purushottamaji down to the time of Pandit Gattoolalaji, who also made
an attempt to expound Aṇu Bhashya, and S'ri Jivanaji of Bada Mandira at
Bombay, who is said to have written a वृत्ति on Aṇu Bhashya, the सांप्रदायिकs have
devoted their attention to the Aṇu Bhashya.

In conclusion we ought not to omit reference to one work which passes
in the name of श्रीमद्भाष्य of S'ri Vallabhacharya. Some pages of the जिज्ञासाधिकरण
and first Pada of the third Adhyaya and 11 Sūtras of the second Pada have been
seen by us. The portion from the third Adhyaya has been published by us in
the monthly Pushti-Bhakti-Sudha. 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.

Having thus surveyed the manuscript-literature on the Aṇu Bhashya,
we shall see how Aṇu Bhashya was attended to, after printing was introduced
into India. The credit of having published अणुभाष्य for the first time, is due to
the Asiatic Society of Bengal, who got Pandit Hemchandra Vidyaratna to
edit the same in Bibliotheca Indica Series. This text was based on there
manuscripts. As a first attempt it was welcome, but its text is unreliable in
good many places. Pandit Hemchandra's describing the अणुभाष्य as द्वैताद्वैतपरं
व्याख्यानं has done great injustice to S'ri Vallabhacharya. The systeem of S'ri
Vallabhacharya was and is always known as the शुद्धाद्वैत. It is difficult for us to
understand how this fact escaped the notice of the learned editor. However with
all its short-comings, we must acknowledge our obligations to the learned editor,
because it was through his efforts that Aṇu Bhashya of S'ri Vallabhacharya
became available in print to the public, for the first time as early as 1897 A. D.

After this Pandit रत्नगोपालभट्ट edited Aṇu Bhashya with भाष्यप्रकाश of S'ri
Purushottamaji for the Benares Sanskrit Series. The Benares edition was a
creditable attempt of the late Pandit Ratna Gopala. It was this edition which
paved the way for people like ourselves, for the study of the Aṇu Bhashya.
But the Benares printing left much to be desired. It did not do justice either
to Aṇu Bhashya or Bhashyaprakas'a. One always found it difficult to follow
the Bhashya-Prakasha without proper paragraphs and punctuation. There were
also many typographical mistakes.

S'āstri Ramanatha then published the first विवृत्ती of the Aṇu Bhashya
with five commentaries under the patronage of S'rimad Goswami S'ri Gokula-
nathji Maharaja of Bombay.
1532

( 13 )
Mr. Magnalal S'astri M. A. of the Deccan College at Poona has
published recently the भावार्थ's portion of Aṇu Bhashya with the commentary
प्रदीप of Itchharama Bhattaji. The प्रदीप is a great help in understanding the literal
text of the Aṇu Bhashya. In the Bombay Sanskrit Series is published Aṇu
Bhashya under the editorship of S'āstri S'rīdhar Pathak of Poona 1921 A. D.
This edition claims to be a critical one, but a comparison of its text with
that of the Benares edition would show that the claim cannot be maintained.
In good many places the text is incorrect and unreliable. Even instances are
there where सूत्रs are not correctly printed. Generally we should have expected
the Bombay Sanskrit Series to maintain a high standard, and we are
disappointed to see that it is not maintained in this edition, in spite of the
materials available to the learned S'āstri. The present attempt to publish the
Aṇu Bhashya with Bhashya-Prakash together with the rare commentary रश्मि
is undertaken under the following circumstances. In spite of four or five editions
of Aṇu Bhashya, we felt that the text of Aṇu Bhashya had not been done justice,
which was due to it. We have been fortunate to secure the original copy of the
भाष्यप्रकाश of S'ri Purushottamaji in his own hand, and comparing the same with
the Benares edition, we felt that the literary acumen displayed in the original,
was lost in the printed text. S'rī Purushottamaji was a great master. His critical
faculty was unparalleled. His love of accuracy was so great, that the quotations
made by him, from the works of other writers, when compared with the printed
texts of those works, were invariably found by us, to be at an advantage in
point of accuracy. From his manuscript we find him putting a point, where we
use a coma, for a full stop he makes one stroke, and for a complete idea he puts
two perpendicular strokes. When he wants to begin a fresh paragraph he puts
two perpendicular strokes, and leaving a space of half an inch, he puts another two
strokes, and then begins a fresh paragraph. Important words are coloured with red
senna. S'rī Purushottamaji has revised this manuscript at least three to four
times. Where he thought that an addition was necessary, he would affix a fine
slip and rewrite over it. Where the angle mark was above the line, we had to
look for the addition on the top of the page on the margin, counting the number
of lines mentioned at the end of the addition. Where the angle was below
the line, we had similarly to look for the addition at the bottom of the page.
S'rī Purushottamaji was a great authority in the Sampradaya, and the copies
of the भाष्यप्रकाश became current at once in the Sampradaya. The result was that
some of the copies which were made before the revison by S'rī Purushottamaji, did
not contain the same. Even our original copy misses the latest revision, because
after it was copied fair, it seems the learned author once more revised the same.
Yogi Gopeswarji had before him the original referred to above. It would seem, he
had not before him the copy of Bhashya Prakās'a containing the last revision,
because we have invariably found the latest addition not commented upon in
रश्मि, even in those places where an explanation would seem extremely necessary.
Such a copy of the भाष्यप्रकाश has also been fortunately available to us. S'rī Purusho-
ttamaji has studied all the then existing systems of Vedanta in a critical method.
His criticism against other systems are very fair, and a student of Aṇu Bhashya
1533

who wanted to study the Aṇu Bhashya in a comparative method, this was the
only commentary that was available in the संप्रदाय. But S'ri Purushottamaji's style
is rather difficult. The literal text of the Aṇu Bhashya in good many places was
not cleared up so as to help the beginners. This want has been amply fulfilled
by Yogi S'rī Gopes'waraji in his रश्मि. रश्मि explains both the Prakas'a and
the Aṇu Bhashya. The Prakas'a is referred to by him in his commentary by
the words 'प्रकृते', while Aṇu Bhashya is referred to by the word 'भाष्ये'. This रश्मि
was completed by S'rī Gopes'waraji in Samvat 1897. We had heard of it a dozen
years back, but upto 1917 we had not been fortunate to see the copy of the
same. Though we visited and searched the libraries of Kotah, Kankroli, Natha-
dwar, and other places, we were unable to trace a complete copy of this com-
mentary. It seems except the original which is in our possession, there is no
complete copy of this manuscript available anywhere. Through a lucky
coincidence the first instalment of this manuscript, came to our hands in 1917.
Since then through a series of incidents, almost the whole manuscript of रश्मि in
the author's own hand, has been available to us. But there was one difficulty in
this manuscript. In many places it is most illegible, and the deciphering of the
manuscript has taxed our patience to the utmost. With all the care that has
been bestowed on it, it is possible that something may have escaped our
vigilence. Whatever that may be, we believe that Aṇu Bhashya as explained
and enlarged in the भाष्यप्रकाश and रश्मि would be the best guide to the right
understanding of the Aṇu Bhashya of S'ri Vallabhacharya.
We would have liked to commence the printing from the very beginning,
but we could not do so as in the original manuscript of रश्मि pages 3 to 21 are
missing. We have got another copy of the same, but it is hopelessly incorrect.
For this purpose we went to Nathadwar, and H. H. the Tilakayita S'ri Govardhana-
lalji was kind enough to lend us the manuscript copy of जिज्ञासाधिकरण of रश्मि. But
on comparison of this copy with the one in our possession, it appears to be a first
draft of रश्मि. Goswami S'ri Gopes'waraji Maharaja, the present occupant of the
seat of S'ri Vitthles'aji's Mandira, did not come to Nathadwar, as usualy he used
to do, during the last Annakoota festival. If he had come, it was possible to take
search, if there was a manuscript of his portion of रश्मि in his temple collection,
because it was in this temple that Yogi Gopes'waraji carried on his labours about
a hundred years ago. In these circumstances in order to avoid delay, we decided
to commence the printing from the third Adhyaya.
The first Pada of the third Adhyaya elaborates the process of the five
आहुतिs of श्रद्धा, सोम, वर्ष, अन्न and रेतः through which Devas secure a body which is fit
for the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman in case of a निष्काम अधिकारी. All
the Achāryas have attributed वैराग्य as the chief object of this Pada, but S'rī
Vallabhacharya differs from them all, and shows that वैराग्य may be a subsidiary
object, but the main purport of Badarayana in these Sūtras is to show the
process of five आहुतिs offered in five fires viz द्युलोक, पर्जन्य, पृथ्वी, पुरुष and योषा through
which the body fit for the attainment of ब्रह्मज्ञान is developed by the presiding deities
in case of a निष्काम अधिकारी.
1534

( 15 )
We have refrained from entering into further details of the अधिकरणs and
सूत्रs, for they have been very beautifully summarised by S'rî Purushottamaji
himself in his वेदान्ताधिकरणमाला published by. us some time ago, and whatever
remains to be said, we propose to say, when the whole work is completed, in an
exhaustive introduction.
The text of Aṇu Bhashya is based on the following manuscripts.
(a) Manuscript belonging to S'rî Damodaraji grandson of S'rî Vitthales'wara.
This manuscript is a very reliable one and at the same time it is well
written and well preserved.
(b) Another manuscript equally old and accurate.
Both these Manuscripts were kindly lent to us by H. H. the Tilakayita
Maharaja of S'rî Nathadwar. S'âstri Nandakis'ora took them out for us.
(c) A manuscript very old and accurate, but in some places, mutilated.
(d) A manuscript old and fairly accurate.
(e) A manuscript well written old and fairly accurate. These three
manuscripts C. D. E. were received from the collection of Pandit
Gattoolalaji in Bombay.
(f) (g) (h) Three manuscripts about 100 years old and fairly accurate. These
three were received from H. H. Goswami S'rî Gokulanathaji
Maharaja of Bombay.
(j) A manuscript received from the collection of S'rî Gokuladhis'aji's temple
of Bombay through the kindness of H. H. Goswami S'rî Maganlalji
Maharaja. This manuscript was taken out for us by S'astri Chimanlal.
(k) A manuscript received from H. H. Goswami S'rî Ranchodlalji Maharaja
of Porbander. This mss. was brought to us by S'âstri Harikrishna.
(l) A mss. received from the collection of H. H. Goswami S'rî VallabhalaIji
Maharaja of Kamwan. This mss. is dated 1787 Samvat and though not
very accurate belongs to a rather different recension.
(m) A mss. received from H. H. Goswami S'rî Muralidharaji Maharaja of
Benares from the Gopala Mandira collection. This was brought to us by
S'âstri Haris'ankar Aunkarji.
(n) The edition printed in Bib. Ind. Series. Calcutta.
(o) The edition of the Benares Sanskrit Series edited by Pandit Ratna
Gopala Bhatta.
(p) The edition of Prof. Maganlal S'âstri M. A. published in Vaishnava
Parishad Series.
(q) The edition published in the Bombay Sanskrit Series.
In additin to these, in cases of doubt, we have consulted S'rî Krishna-
chandraji's भावप्रकाशिकावृत्ति and वेदान्ताधिकरणमाला, the former written in the hand of
S'rî Purushottamaji himself.
1535

( 16 )
The text of the Bhashya Prakas'a is based on the original copy written by
the author in his own hand. For the portions which are added by the author
subsequently to this copy in his fair draft, and which are not incorporated
in this manuscript, we have based the text of those additions on three copies.
At one time we thought of bracketing this last addition, but on a further
consideration, we thought that as the author himself wanted to incorporate the
same, it would not be fit to mark out the same.
(a) A mss. dated 1787 Samvat received from his H. H. Goswami S'ri
Vallabhalalji Maharaja of Kamwan.
(b) A mss. received from H. H. Goswami S'ri Ranchhodlalji Maharaja
of Porbander.
(c) (d) Two mss. received from Pundit Gattoolalaji's collection of Bombay.
(e) The edition in the Benares Sanskrit Series.
The text of the रश्मि is based on the original copy in our possession as
stated above.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।
1536
Bombay, }
5-2-26. } M. T. Telivala.

श्रीकृष्णाय नमः ।
श्रीगोपीजनवल्लभाय नमः ।
श्रीमदाचार्यचरणकमलेभ्यो नमः ।
श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्राणुभाष्यम् ।
भाष्यप्रकाश-रश्मि-परिवृंहितम् ।
अथ तृतीयोऽध्यायः ।
प्रथमः पादः ।
तदन्तरप्रतिपत्तौ रंहति संपरिष्वक्तः प्रश्ननिरूपणाभ्याम् ॥ १ ॥ (३-१-१)
सर्वोपनिषदां सिद्धो ह्यविरोधे समन्वयः ।
कथं बोधकता तासां स तृतीये विचार्यते ॥ १ ॥
भाष्यप्रकाशः ।
श्रीहरिर्जयति । श्रीगोपीजनवल्लभाय नमः । तदन्तरप्रतिपत्तौ रंहति
संपरिष्वक्तः प्रश्ननिरूपणाभ्याम् ॥ १ ॥ अथ तृतीयाध्यायं व्याचिख्यासवः सङ्गतिं वक्तुं
पूर्वाध्यायर्थं सारयन्तः प्रकृताध्यायर्थमाहुः सर्वेत्यादि । 'तं त्वौपनिषद'मित्यादिश्रुतेर्ब्रह्म-
ण्यु

्याthenय्या! Wait, look at ध्या: ध+य+ा. Then याwithर्andथः? Wait, is there another य? Let's count: तृ(1)ती(2)या(3)ध्या(4)या(5)र्थः(6). Wait, betweenध्याandर्थः, is it याorय्या? Look at या: it has a vertical line, no double consonant visible, wait, or is it ध्यायार्थः? Let's compare with साधनाध्यायत्वेनin L7:ध्याthenयthenत्वे. In L24: तृ ती या ध्या या र्थः-> wait, does it haveय्या? Look at: ध्याthenयाwith a hook on topर्->ध्यायार्थः! Wait, why did I initially think तृतीयाध्याय्यार्थः? Ah, looking closely at the image: तृ ती या ध्या या र्थः- wait, betweenध्याandर्थः, there is only ONE याwith a repha on the following letterर्थः! Wait, look at the letter before र्थः: it's या`. Is there another letter?
No!

भाष्यप्रकाश-रश्मि-परिवृंहितम् । ३

ससाधने हि पुरुषे जन्मना कर्मणा शुचौ ।
केवले वा यथा योगे प्रथमं तद् विचार्यते ॥ १ ॥
विचारपूर्वकं तस्य ब्रह्मभावाप्तियोग्यता ।

भाष्यप्रकाशः।

ननु यद्युपनिषन्निष्ठबोधकताप्रकारचिन्तनमेतदध्यायर्थः, तदा संसारगतिप्रभेदसन्धयसुषुप्तादि-
बोधकानामधिकरणानां कथं सङ्गतिरित्यकाङ्क्षायां पादानांमर्थांन्निमिराहुः ससाधन इत्यादि।
**'ब्रह्मविदामोति पर'**मिति परप्राप्तिसाधनतया यज्ज्ञानमुक्तम्, तदपरोक्षमेव विवक्षितम् । 'तस्मिन्
दृष्टे परावरे' 'आत्मन्येवात्मानं पश्येत्' **'सर्वं हि पश्यः पश्यती'**त्यादिषु दृशेः प्रयोगात् । तच्च न
शब्दश्रवणमात्रादिति मननादिविधिभिरवसीयते । यत्र पुनः शब्दश्रवणमात्रात्, तत्रापि
शुद्धिरवश्यमस्तीति फलबलादेव ज्ञायते । ततः पूर्वं शुद्धिर्मृग्या । हि अतो हेतोः जन्मना कर्मणा
शुचौ विचाररूपसाधनसहिते पुरुषे विद्यां जनयन्ति, वा अथवा, केवले जन्मकर्मावदातत्वाभावेऽपि
वरणमात्रविषये । तत्र दृष्टान्तः यथा योगे । अतो **'निर्विवयं नित्यं मनः कार्यं मुमुक्षुणे'**ति-
श्रुतेर्जन्मादिशुद्धिरहितेऽपि केवले वरणविषये मनःशोधनपरे च पुरुषे जनयन्ति । 'यदि
शैलसमं पापं विस्तीर्णं योजनान् बहून्, भिद्यते ज्ञानयोगेने'ति योगबोधकध्यानबिन्दुश्रुते'र्योगेनैव
**दहेद्देहो नान्यत् तत्र कदाचने'**ति श्रीभागवतवाक्येन तत्र साधनान्तरानपेक्षणात् । एवं वरणेऽपि,
'पापकर्षण' इति । **'अपूतः पूतो भवति मां स्मृत्वे'**ति तापनीयश्रुतेः । 'कोटिजन्मार्जिते पापे
कृषिः क्लेशे च वर्तते । भक्तानां णश्च निर्वाणे तेन कृष्णः प्रकीर्तित' इति ब्रह्मवैवर्तवाक्याच्च
भक्तानां पापनिवृत्तेः शुद्धेश्च भगवतैव सम्भवात् । एवं त्रिविधेष्वधिकारिषु भगवदिच्छया सम्भवत्सु
मुख्यमध्यमयोर्वरणयोगाभ्यामेव सिद्धिरिति तन्न विचार्यते, किन्तु प्रथमं प्रथमे पादे, तत्
जघन्याधिकारिणां शुचित्वं विचार्यते । तादृशेषु दययैव व्यासचरणानामेतदुद्यमात् । तथाचोपो-
द्घातः सहकारिसम्पत्तिरूपस्तदर्थः । ततो द्वितीये पादे जीवभावस्थादिविचारपूर्वकं तस्य जीवस्य
ब्रह्मभावप्राप्तियोग्यता स्वरूपतो योग्यत्वम् । तत्तत्त्वविचारेण अधिकारे मुख्यधिकारे जीवस्य सिद्धे

रश्मिः।

न शब्दश्रवणेति । 'वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितायां' इति श्रुत्युक्तात् । तव्यस्य विधौ
विधानादाहुः मननेति । ननु भक्तौ 'श्रेयोभिर्विविधैर्धान्यैः कृष्णे भक्तिर्हि साध्यत' इति
वाक्याद्वेदान्तवाक्ये मननादिविधिनिवेशे किं बीजमित्यत आहुः यत्रेति । यथा परीक्षितः ।
'पिबन्तं त्वन्मुखाम्भोजच्युतं हरिकथामृत'मितिवाक्यात् । फलं मोक्षः । एवकारश्शद्वाचक-
शब्दव्यवच्छेदकः । वेदान्तविज्ञानश्रुतौ तद्वाचकः शब्दोस्ति । तत इति । श्रुतेः फलफलाच्च ।
वरणेति । वरणं स्वीयत्वेनाङ्गीकारः, न भक्तिः । वरणजसर्वात्मभावेति वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् । वरणं सर्वत्र
कारणम्, अतो न प्रदानवत्सूत्रविरोधः । 'नायमात्मे'त्यादिश्रुती अत्र द्रष्टव्ये । वरणं पुष्टिरिति ।
'पोषणं तदनुग्रह' इति वाक्यात् । इदं भक्तिहेतुग्रन्थे स्पष्टम् । भक्तिहेतुग्रन्थे पुष्टिमर्यादयोरेवानुग्रह-
साध्यत्वम्, न सर्वात्मभावस्येति चेत् । न । सर्वात्मभावदानस्याकस्मिकत्वापत्तेः । ज्ञानेति । ध्यानयोगेने-
त्यपि पाठः । दार्ष्टान्तिके योजयन्ति स्म एवं वरण इति । पापेति । सप्तम्यन्तम् । वरणे पापकषर्णत्वं
जीवधर्मे वरणे, ब्रह्मधर्मः पापकषर्णं स्वाश्रिताश्रितत्वसम्बन्धेन । स्वं जीवः इत्याशयेनाहुः अपूत इत्यादि ।
भगवतैवेति । एवकारेण साधनान्तरव्यवच्छेदः । त्रिविधेति । जन्मकर्मभ्यां शुचौ विचाररूपसाधन-
सहिते । जन्मकर्मावदातत्वाभावेपि वरणमात्रविषये । दययैवेति । गुरुत्वात्कृपालुत्वम् । 'कृपालुरकृत-
तद्रोह' इति वाक्यात् । एवकारस्तु कृपालुत्वधर्मविरोधिधर्मव्यवच्छेदकः । सहेति । शुचित्वरूपसहक-

1539

अधिकारतः सिद्धे विषयावधृतिस्ततः ॥ ४ ॥
अन्तरङ्गविचारेण गुणानामुपसंहृतिः ।
बहिरङ्गविचारेण कर्मणामिति सा द्विधा ॥ ५ ॥
तस्मादधिकारिणो जन्मनिर्धारः । तदनु तस्य ब्रह्मभावयोग्यता । ततो
गुणोपसंहारः । ततोऽङ्गविचार इति ।

भाष्यप्रकाशः।
विषयावधृतिः । विषयस्य ब्रह्मस्वरूपस्य यादृशं ब्रह्मस्वरूपं तस्य अवधृतिर्निर्णयो विचार्यते ।
ततस्तृतीये पादे अन्तरङ्गविचारेण सूक्ष्मदेहनिष्ठतया मुक्तिपर्यन्तमनुवर्तमानत्वेन 'तं यथाथथोपासते
तथा भवति'ति 'यथा क्रतुरस्मिन् लोके पुरुषो भवति, तथेतः प्रेत्य भवति'ति श्रुतेरवश्यफलसाधकतया
चान्तरङ्गं यत् साधनं कर्मज्ञानभक्तिमार्गीयमुपासनं तद्विचारेण, गुणानां तत्तदुपासनोपयुक्तानां
भगवद्गुणानामुपसंहृतिः तत्तद्विधोपासने तत्तन्नियमनम् । एतादृशे उपासने एतादृशा गुणा एवं
चिन्तनीया इति । ततस्तुरीये पादे बहिरङ्गविचारेण स्थूलदेहनिष्ठतया इतरसाधारणतया च बहिरङ्गानि
यानि साधनानि आश्रमादिरूपाणि तद्विचारेण कर्मणां पूर्वोत्तरकाण्डोक्तानां यज्ञतपःशमदमादि-
श्रवणादिभगवद्धर्मप्रभृतीनामुपसंहृतिः । नित्यान्येव कार्याणि, तान्यपि 'ब्रह्मण्याधाय' 'सङ्गं
त्यक्त्वा' कार्याणीत्येवं नियमनम् । इति एवंप्रकारेण सा उपसंहृतिर्द्विधा, विचार्यत इति क्रिया-
पदमत्रापि सम्बध्यते । तथाच जघन्याधिकारिणां पूर्वपादोक्तरीत्या स्वरूपयोग्यतायाः सहकारियोग्य-
तायाश्च पूर्वं सिद्धौ द्वितीयपादोक्तरीत्या विषयावधारणे यथाधिकारं तत्तद्गुणकतत्तत्स्वरूपोपासनायां
यज्ञादिसहित्येन क्रियमाणायां तत्तद्गुणं ब्रह्मस्वरूपं बोधयन्ति । उत्तममध्यमयोस्तु द्वितीयपादोक्त-
ब्रह्मभावाप्तियोग्यतायाः सत्त्वात् पूर्वपादोक्तयोग्यताविरहेऽपि यथाधिकारं वरणयोग्ययोः सहकारेणा-
यत्नतद्ब्रह्मस्वरूपयोस्तदुचितगुणकस्वरूपोपासनायां तदुचितबहिरङ्गसाधनसाहित्येन तत्तन्मार्गरीत्या
क्रियमाणायां यथाधिकारं बहिर्वान्तर्वा तद्गुणं ब्रह्मस्वरूपं बोधयन्तीति प्रकारविशेषबोधनेनो-
पोद्घातः स सङ्गतिरित्यर्थः ।
एवं पादानामर्थानुक्त्वा प्रकारान्तरार्थशङ्कानिरासाय निगमयन्ति तस्मादित्यादि । यस्मादेवं
साधनसम्पत्तावुपनिषदां विद्याजनकता, अन्यथा सत्सम्प्रदायेऽपि परोक्षज्ञानजनकतेव, तस्माद्धेतो-
रधिकारिणो जन्मनिर्धारः प्रथमार्थः, न तु वैराग्यार्थं संसारगतिप्रदर्शनमात्रम् । एवं द्वितीयेप्यव-
स्थाप्रदर्शनं ब्रह्मभावयोग्यत्वार्थम्, न तु वैराग्यमात्रार्थम् । गुणाद्युपसंहारप्रभृति तूपासनादिद्वारा
विद्यार्थं स्फुटमेवेति उपनिषदां बोधकताप्रकारविचार एव तृतीयाध्याये प्रतिपाद्यते, अतो न
तेषामसङ्गतिरित्यर्थः । एवञ्च पादेषु प्रथमार्थस्य सर्वाग्रिमोपजीव्यत्वम् । द्वितीयस्यास्य तदग्रि-
मोपजीव्यत्वम् । तृतीयतुरीययोस्त्वेककार्यत्वमिति विशेषः सिध्यति ।

रश्मिः ।
रिसंपत्तिरूपः प्रथमपादार्थः । निगमयन्तीति । तस्मात्सर्वतो वह्निमानितिवन्निगमयन्तीत्यर्थः । एवेति ।
'वेदान्तविज्ञाने'त्यादिश्रुतेरेवकारः । अन्यमतं निराकुर्वन्ति स्म न त्विति । ब्रह्मभावेति ।
'आश्रमादाश्रमं गच्छेन्नान्यथा मत्परश्चरेदि'तिवाक्यात् । वैराग्येति । 'ऋणानि त्रीण्यपाकृत्य मनो मोक्षे
निवेशये'दितिवाक्याद्वैराग्यार्थमवस्थाः । स्फुटमेवेति । एवकारोऽस्फुटव्यवच्छेदकः । एकेति । एकस्य
द्वितीयपादार्थस्य । कारणस्य कार्यत्वं यथा गुणोपसंहारे तथाङ्गविचारेपीति । अङ्गस्य पुष्ट्याद्यङ्गस्य सर्वा-

यहाँ पृष्ठ की पंक्ति-दर-पंक्ति देवनागरी लिपि में Markdown प्रस्तुति है:

भाष्यप्रकाश-रश्मि-परिवृंहितम् । ५
तत्र प्रथमे पादे जीवस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानौपयिकं जन्म विचार्यते । तत्र पूर्वजन्मनि
निष्कामयज्ञकर्तुर्ज्ञानरहितस्य मरणे ज्ञानाभावेन यज्ञाभिव्यक्त्यभावाद् भूतसं-
स्कारक एव यज्ञो जात इति, निष्कामकत्वाच्च तदधिकारिदेवाधीनान्येव भूतानीति,
भाष्यप्रकाशः ।
एवं सर्वं निगमयित्वा प्रथमपादं व्याख्यातुं तदर्थमनुवदन्ति तत्रेत्यादि । तेष्वर्थेषु जीवस्य
ब्रह्मज्ञानौपयिकं जन्म विचार्यते । गीतायां 'अग्निर्ज्योतिरहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तरायणम् । तत्र
प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जना' इति भगवता ब्रह्मविद एवार्चिरादिमार्गेण ब्रह्मगतेरुक्तत्वात्
तदनुसारेण व्युत्पाद्यत इत्यर्थः । तच्च छान्दोग्ये पञ्चाग्निविद्यायां सिद्धमिति प्रथमं तत्तात्पर्यमाहुः
तत्र पूर्वेत्यादि । सा च सप्तमे प्रपाठके गौतमप्रवाहणसंवादे 'यथा पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो
भवन्ती'ति प्रश्नप्रतिवचनभूतैः 'असौ वा व लोको गौतमाग्नि'रित्यादिभिरुक्ता । 'असौ वा व लोको
गौतमाग्निस्तस्यादित्य एव समिद्रश्मयो धूमोऽहरर्चिश्चन्द्रमा अङ्गारा नक्षत्राणि विस्फुलिङ्गास्तस्मिन्ने-
तस्मिन्नौ देवाः श्रद्धां जुह्वति तस्या आहुतेः सोमो राजा सम्भवती'ति । द्वितीये वाक्ये पर्जन्यग्न्याश्व-
भ्रविद्युदशनिह्रादनयो विस्फुलिङ्गान्ताः, सोमो राजा होम्यः, वर्ष फलम् । तृतीये पृथिवीसंवत्सरा-
काशरात्रीदिगवान्तरदिशो विस्फुलिङ्गान्ताः, वर्षं होम्यम्, अन्नं फलम् । चतुर्थे पुरुषवाक्प्राणजिह्वा-
चक्षुःश्रोत्राणि विस्फुलिङ्गान्ताः, अन्नं होम्यम्, रेतः फलम् । पञ्चमे योषोपस्थोपमन्त्रणयोनितदन्तः-
कृत्यभिनन्दाः विस्फुलिङ्गान्ताः, रेतो होम्यम्, गर्भः फलम् । तदग्रे 'इति तु पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः
पुरुषवचसो भवन्तीति स उल्बावृतो गर्भो दश वा नव वा मासानन्तः शयित्वा यावद्वाथ जायते, स
जातो यावदायुषं जीवति, तं प्रेतं दिष्टमितोऽग्नय एव हरन्ति, यत एवेतो यतः सम्भूतो भवती'त्यन्तम् ।
अर्थस्तु, हे गौतम, असौ वा व द्युलोक एव अग्निः, यथेहाग्निहोत्राधिकरणमाह-
वनीयः । तस्याग्नेर्धुलोकाख्यस्य आदित्य एव समित् । तेन हीद्धो द्युलोको दीप्यते, अतः समिन्ध-
नात् समित् । रश्मयो धूमस्तदुत्थितत्वात् । समिद्धे अग्नौ हि धूम उत्तिष्ठति । अहरर्चिः । प्रकाश-
सामान्याढादित्यकार्यत्वाच्च । चन्द्रमा अङ्गाराः । अहःप्रशमेऽभिव्यक्तेः । अर्चिषः प्रशमे ह्यङ्गारा
अभिव्यज्यन्त इति । नक्षत्राणि विस्फुलिङ्गाः विप्रकीर्णत्वसामान्याच्चन्द्रमसोऽवयवा इव । तस्मिन्ने-
तस्मिन् यथोक्तलक्षणेऽग्नौ देवा लोकपालाः कर्मसचिवाः श्रद्धां जुह्वति । 'श्रद्धा वा आप' इति
श्रुत्यन्तरात् 'आपः पुरुषवचसो भवन्ती'ति प्रश्नवाक्यादग्रे तथैव निगमनाच्च श्रद्धाशब्देनाप
रश्मिः ।
त्त्वभावादेर्विचारः । जन्मेति । सर्वेषु साधनेषु सन्दिग्धं जन्मेत्यर्थः । तेन ब्राह्मदेहादिविचारं
त्यक्त्वाऽपां पुरुषवचस्त्वविचार उपपत्तिरुक्ता । तदिति । जन्म । प्रथममिति । सन्दिग्धत्वादिति भावः ।
तात्पर्यमिति । वाच्यार्थस्तु श्रुतिवाच्यः । तत्र पूर्वेत्यादीति । तत्र जन्मविचारे पूर्वेत्याद्यर्द्धेनोक्तोक्षा-
भावेन जन्म विचार्यते । सेति । विद्या । 'अदसस्तु विप्रकृष्टं' रूपमित्याहुः द्युलोक इति ।
श्रुतित्वादेवकारः । आहवनीये जुहोति । एवेति । पूर्ववत् । समिदिति । 'ञिन्धी दीप्तौ' सम्पूर्वः
क्विबन्तः । अभिरत्र ब्रह्म तच्चाधोक्षजः । 'नक्षत्राणामुदयो यत' इति श्रुतेः । तस्याग्नेरप्रत्य-
क्षत्वादित्यं विना कः प्रत्यक्षं संपादयेत् । 'यच्चन्द्रमसि यच्चाग्नौ तन्तेजो विद्धि मामक'मिति वाक्यात् ।
लोकपाला इत्यादि । लोकपाला अग्न्यादयस्तृतीयस्य षष्ठेऽध्याये सन्ति । ते कर्मप्रधानाः।
'तदुपर्यपी'ति सूत्रे उक्ताः । जुह्वतीति । ददति अदन्ति च । यागानामनेकविधत्वात् । अग्र इति ।
'इति तु पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो भवन्ती'ति श्रुतौ । तथैवेति । इति स्त्वित्यस्य हेत्वर्थकस्य
1541