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

( 22 )

service, as a teacher in the Elphinstone High School, Bombay. Thence he
was selected for the Training College with a scholarship of Rs. 50 per month,
and this gave him an opportunity to read up the course for LL. B. For some
time, he lived with Mr. Khimji Cooverji at Walkeshwar, as a tutor to his son.
The first वैष्णवपरिषद् met at Baroda in 1906, second at Patan in 1907, and
the third at Nandurbar in 1909. After this, पुष्टिभक्तिसुधा the well-known monthly
magazine was started, and though he was a student, his constant and power-
ful contributions coupled with his independent thinking and fearless expres-
sion created a stir in the वैष्णव world. Mr. Maganlal Gunpatram Shastri, the
founder of the Parishad and the Magazine, found in him a young, able and
resourceful co-worker. The fourth session of the परिषद् was held at Surat in
1910, and there also he attracted great attention.
He passed his final LL. B. in 1914, and in all probabilities it appeared
that he would begin practice at Broach, as the same was his native place,
but all were surprised when he took a High Court Sanad and came to
settle in Bombay. The reason which led him to this decision without
consulting any one, is as under:—
From infancy, he often got dreams in which he found himself flying in
the air, and some dreams were suggestive of future events. While at Broa-
ch, one early morning before living the bed, he got a dream in which he saw
श्रीनाथजी, the स्वरूप in the Broach temple, swinging in पलना and smiling at him. He
got up with great joy, and after प्रातःनित्यकर्म he went for दर्शन. He was greatly
delighted to have the same दर्शन there, not in dream, but in reality. There
was पलना मनोरथ and the स्वरूप was adorned in the same बग्वालहार as he had seen in
the dream, and there was the same joyful, smiling look. While he was re-
turning home, Mr. Jaikisandas, a life-long friend of Teliwala family, called
him at his shop, congratulated him on his passing the 2nd LL. B. examina-
tion, advised him to practice in the Bambay High Court, and gave him
Rs. 500/ (Rs. 300+Rs. 200) required for taking out a Sanad. Mulchandra saw
God's hand in all this and without waiting to consult any one, he came to
Bombay, took the Sanad, and began practice. He shared the chamber of
the late Mr. Bhailal Kothari at Lamington Road. Here he came into con-
tact with the late Mr. Kashidas Narayandas Dalal who was the sub-tenant of
Mr. Bhailal and who was the Secretary of Pandit Gattulalaji's संस्था. He helped
Mr. Kashidas in preparing the annual टिप्पणी, and from that time Mr. Kashidas
took a liking to him. He allowed him full access to the Library manuscripts
fully appreciating his great erudition and learning, and finally got him
appointed a trustee of the संस्था along with the late Shet Tribhovandas Vurji-
vandas, J. P. The reader will thus see that but for वरदान to his grand-father,
the जन्म of Mulchandra was impossible, that at the time of his birth, the worldly
wealth was all taken away by way of अनुग्रह, the suggestion and facility to
settle in Bombay was all due to the Almighty's helping hand, and finally
the greatest convenience for his life-work, viz. the possession of an exce-
llent manuscript Library of the सम्प्रदाय was provided for him by God; and but
2022

( 23 )
for divine help, not one of these series of important events could have been
brought about by his own efforts. The astrologer of his family predicted
from his कुण्डली that he would perform a great and
memorable यज्ञ, and after more than half of his valu-
able publications were out, Mulchandra himself un-
derstood the meaning of this यज्ञ, and whenever there
were difficulties in his work on account of illness or
want of funds or want of manuscripts, he prayed to
God, and the prayers were in many cases heard and difficulties solved.
Long before this, Mr. Maganlal Shastri had begun to utilise the वैष्णव
परिषद् funds for getting manuscripts copied from पं. गट्टूलालजी’s library in consul-
tation with Mulchandra, but the fund was small, and the work was stopped
after some time. In December 1914, Mr. Maganlal Shastri was transferred
to the Deccan College, Poona, and he had to leave Bombay in January
1915. The daily Katha Mandli at the Khakhar Building came to
a stop, and thereupon at the request of his friends, Mulchandra began
reading अणुभाष्य and निवन्ध, every night. The Bombay University prescribed
for सुहृद्गोकुलजी झाला वेदान्त prize for 1915 the following essay-‘Discuss how
far शंकराचार्य truly represents the view of the author of the ब्रह्मसूत्रs’. Mu-
lchandra had gone through the प्रकाश of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी about four or five times,
and with his powerful memory he had materials enough for the required dis-
cussion. He thought of writing the essay just a month before it was due,
and with the wonderful concentration of mind that he possessed, he wrote it
out and gave it on the last due date. The language, the outer garment he
had no time to correct or adorn, but the thought is so deep, the discussion
so balanced, the judgment so impartial, that it is difficult to find fault any-
where, while the comparative method and the wide knowledge that he had
gathered from प्रकाश having been fully utilised here must have compelled
admiration of his examiners. The prize was divided between him and
Mr. Kurtkoti. The essay is published and is very widely read. Scholars like
Dr. Bhandarkar, Dr. Thibeau, and many other Orientalists have long ago
come to the conclusion that शंकर’s interpretation of ब्रह्मसूत्रs does not represent
बादरायण’s view, but they had not before them अणुभाष्य and प्रकाश, and so they thought
that शंकर had, however, well succeeded in making a समन्वय of all important
उपनिषद्'s. If this view were correct, शंकर would be wiser than बादरायण. We
have no doubt that a wide knowledge of अणुभाष्य, प्रकाश and रश्मि would dispel this
view. Copies of the Essay were sent to many scholars and many have prai-
sed it, and some have expressed their inability to pronounce any judgment
as they had not studied the various भाष्यs by the comparative method.
In about 1915, at the request of Mr. Tribhovandas of Nadiad to trans-
late सेवाफल, he began collecting साहित्य on it, and at first collected 12 Teekas,
some in हस्ताक्षर of authors themselves. Such a collection was never to be
found before in any one library or with any one गोस्वामी or ordinary वैष्णव, and
he thought of publishing them. Mr. Tribhovandas had no funds for this
2023

( 24 )

work, so Mulchandra approached श्रीजीवनलालजी of पोरबन्दर for the same.
He immediately consented and sent Rs. 500 for the publication. The
work was begun at once, and the first volume of his memorable series was
published in December 1916. It established his reputation in the पुष्टिसम्प्रदाय. So
many commentaries were never thought of before by any one, much less seen,
and now they had them before their eyes all collected, beautifully printed,
and with a lucid introduction in Sanskrit. Three more commentaries were
subsequently traced and published along with जलभेद. This publication was
followed in quick succession by others, and the details as to how, whence and
how many manuscripts were collected, how funds were obtained etc., are
given in the introduction to each work.
His first marriage took place at Ujjain in 1911-12, and he was blessed
with a wife who was very pious, spending about two hours every morning in
religious observances, highly devoted to her husband, and had a strong and
healthy constitution. Mulchandra's mother also was called from Broach,
and all lived in Bombay. His income being very limited, they had to live an
extremely frugal life, devoid of all luxuries such as tea, vegetables and
milk; but it was peaceful and contented. His first son was born in
1914, and a daughter was born in 1915. But even this little happiness
did not last long. The daughter died, followed by his wife who died
at Broach from fever incident on delivery in Diwali, viz., about October
1917, and Mulchandra and his son were put to great difficulties for
daily food. There were no means to keep a cook, or a servant to
take care of the son. When the father went to court at 11 A. M, after
locking the room, the son passed his time somehow with the neighbours,
and if the father did not return at 6 P. M., the lonely son would sit in front
of the door with a stream of tears flowing from his eyes down the cheeks and
with constant sobs which no amount of persuasion could check. When
ultimately he did arrive, the boy would fly into his arms, and would not
leave him even in bed and till next day's fateful hour 11 A. M. One source
of his little income was some small commissions which came to him
from the Chief Judge of the Bombay Small causes Court who appreciated
his value, thereby showing his great regard for him, for his sterling
character and great learning. For this work, pleaders asked him to fix time
after 5-30 P. M., which this junior Mulchandra did, but after some bitter expe-
riences of the above nature, he avoided engagements after 5-30 p. m. It
was under such difficulties that the life-work of Mulchandra was done.
In 1919 ( Vaishakh 1975 ) he went to श्रीनाथद्वार and कांकरोली at the time of
यज्ञोपवीत ceremony of श्रीमद्भूषणजी son of श्रीबालकृष्णलालजी. He had with him a com-
pany of friends including उत्तमलाल चन्दुलाल, and others. With their help, he saw
the libraries of कोटा and gathered important information from manuscripts from
all possible sources. He also saw the Nathadwārā Library. The library of
श्रीविट्ठलेशजी the second house in which श्रीहरिरायजी, and योगिगोपेश्वरजी flourished, could
not be seen, though many efforts were made, and it still remains to be seen
with a view to find out all the ग्रन्थs of श्रीहरिरायजी and श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी. It was at

2024

( 25 )

the time of this trip that the publication of श्रीटिप्पणीजी was undertaken, and
the circumstances under which it was done, and the important discovery
of the पाण्डु draft in the हस्ताक्षर of श्रीगुसांईजी which it led to, are fully des-
cribed in the introduction of श्रीटिप्पणीजी. His second marriage took place
at Surat in 1920, in दशामोढ caste. The dowry was fixed at about Rs. 750,
but Mulchandra could ill afford this cash and he got a loan from a friend
without asking for it. श्रीमन्नरत्नलालजी of Surat graced the marriage procession
by his presence. His second wife has two sons and a daughter.

In 1917 his friend उत्सवलाल invited Mulchandra to Anand, and told
him in the course of conversation that he had seen रश्मि at Surat. Mulchan-
dra sent him to Surat to fetch it, which he did. It was a portion found in a
very bad condition, and since then Mulchandra tried to collect रश्मि manu-
scripts from all sources, and one of his great desires was to be able to pub-
lish भाष्य, प्रकाश and रश्मि together. Through the help of श्रीगोकुलनाथजी of वडामंदिर,
Bombay, he succeeded in arranging in May 1925 to get funds from the
Gordhandas Soondardas Trust administrated by Seth Lalji Naranji and
others, and curtailed all other activities, so that he may be able to devote
his undivided attention to the publication of this great work. He was able
to publish only three volumes consisting of first, second and third Padas of
the third अध्याय before his death.

In 1927, Shree Tikayat Maharaja, Shree Gordhanlalji and Lālbāvā
Shree Damodarlalji invited him to श्रीनाथद्वार and he went there accompanied
by his friends Messrs. Jamnadas Kanji, Gordhandas Pragji and Hiralal Mulji.
He was shown a few pages of the 3rd अध्याय and a complete manuscript of
the 4th अध्याय of अणुभाष्य and he found them to his great delight in the हस्ताक्षर of
श्रीगुसांईजी. In this manuscript the portion of the second interpretation of the
first two सूत्रs of the fourth अध्याय is subsequently added by श्रीगुसांईजी. A minute
inspection of the manuscript left no doubt in Mulchandra's mind that the
author of the work was श्रीगुसांईजी himself.

He had a very wonderful genius for research. His creative faculty,
powerful imagination, extremely retentive memory and a deep alround
knowledge of the Sāmpradāyika Gāthās helped this aptitude for research to
such an extent that he compelled old worn out manuscripts to speak out, to
whom they belonged, from whom they were stolen, when they were written, in
whose hand-writing they were and other special details about each of them,
with a quickness and preciseness which would put to shame even the hero
of a detective novel. We would give an instance and narrate the facts
in his own words:—

“નવ પુસ્તકના આધારે શ્રીટિપ્પણીજીનું શોધન કરી અમે મુદ્રણકાર્યમાં ફલપ્રકરણના પ્રથમાધ્યાયના
અન્તભાગપર્યન્ત આવ્યા. ‘क्रिया सर्वापि सैवात्र’ એ સુબોધિનીકારિકાનું વ્યાખ્યાન કાંઈક વિલક્ષણ લાગ્યું. આથી
શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજીકૃત તત્પ્રકાશ જોયો. આ પ્રકાશ પણ શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજીનો નિજબીડહસ્તાક્ષરે લખેલો અમારે ત્યાં
બિરાજે છે. તે જોતાં નીચેની પંક્તિ વાચવામાં આવી:—‘अत्र कारिकाव्याख्यानं टिप्पणीपुस्तकेषु दृश्यते, तद्
पाण्डुलिखने नास्तीति श्रीगोकुलनाथानां तद् प्रतिभाति, केश्वरीत्यापि यथेति च।’ અહિં કારિકાવ્યાખ્યાનનું ઉલ્લંઘન

4
2025

( 26 )
ટિપ્પણીપુસ્તકમાં થાય છે, તે પાંડુલિખનમાં નથી, તેથી શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું તે હોય એમ લાગે છે, શોધરી-
તથી પણ તેમજ ભાસે છે. એ કારિકાવ્યાખ્યાન શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું છે એમ શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજી કહે છે તે
વાતને એજ કારિકાવ્યાખ્યાનનું સ્વતંત્ર પુસ્તક જે અમારી પાસે વિદ્યમાન છે તે પુષ્ટિ આપે છે. તે પુસ્ત-
કમાં આ પ્રકારે લખેલું છે:—'श्रीजीवल्लभो जयति । दसमका अध्याय २६ ने समाप्ते श्रीआचार्यजीनी कारिका
५ ॥ छे, ते मध्ये पहेली कारिका जे 'क्रिया सर्वापि सेवायां परं कामो न विद्यते । तासां कामस्य संपूर्तिर्निष्कामेनेति
सा कथा ॥ १ ॥ श्रीजीकृत दृष्टु लिखन'. આના પછી મુદ્રિત શ્રીટિપ્પણીજીમાં વિદ્યમાન સંસ્કૃત વ્યાખ્યાન
અક્ષરશઃ આદ્યન્ત લખેલું છે. શ્રીગોકુલેશના અન્તરંગ સેવકો એઓશ્રીને પુરુષોત્તમભાવથી શ્રીજીસંજ્ઞાથી વ્યવ-
હારે છે. આથી શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજીનું કથન કે આ વ્યાખ્યાન શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું છે તે સુદ્રઢ થાય છે. આ તો
અપ્રસ્તુત પ્રસંગ થયો, પરંતુ આ શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજીની પંક્તિથી અન્ય વાર્તા સ્ફુરી. આ લેખથી એમ જણાયું
કે શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજી પાસે આ પાંડુલિખન શ્રીટિપ્પણીજીનું હોવું જોઇએ, અને શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજી સુરતમાં થયેલા
હોવાથી ઉક્ત પુસ્તક સુરતના શ્રીબાલકૃષ્ણજીના મંદિરમાં હોવું જોઈએ. આ અનુમાનથી દોરાઇને અમે એક
વિનતિપત્ર આ સંબંધમાં શ્રીવ્રજરત્નજીને લખ્યું. મહારાજશ્રીએ નિજમંદિરમાં વિદ્યમાન સંગ્રહમાં તપાસ કરી,
પરંતુ એ પાંડુલિખનનું પુસ્તક તેમાં મળ્યું નહિ. તેથી આપશ્રીએ અમને જણાવ્યું કે ઉક્ત શ્રીટિપ્પણીજીનું
પુસ્તક અમારે ત્યાં સુરતના મંદિરમાં નથી. આ પ્રત્યુત્તરથી અમારા અન્તરાત્માને સંતોષ થયો નહિ, તેથી
સ્વતઃ સુરત જઈ આનો નિશ્ચય કરવાનું સ્ફુર્યું. આથી દીવાળીની રજામાં ગત આશ્વિન શુક્લ ત્રયોદશીને
દિવસે અમે સુરત ગયા. તે જ દિવસે મહારાજશ્રીવ્રજરત્નજીને વિનતિ કરી કે આપશ્રી અમને આપશ્રીને
ત્યાં સેવામાં વિરાજતા હસ્તલિખિત પુસ્તકોનું દર્શન કરાવવા કૃપા કરો. મહારાજશ્રીએ કૃપા કરી અમારી
વિનતિ લક્ષમાં લઈ બીજે જ દિવસે—આશ્વિન શુક્લ પૂર્ણિમા—રાસોત્સવને દિવસે—પ્રાતઃકાલે ગ્વાલ અને રાજ-
ભોગના અનવસરમાં ઉક્ત પુસ્તકોનું દર્શન કરાવ્યું. હસ્તલિખિત પુસ્તકોનું દર્શન કરતાં અમને બહુજ
આનન્દ તથા સંતોષ થયો. અમને માલૂમ પડ્યું કે શ્રીમદ્વિઠ્ઠલેશ્વર પ્રભુચરણના નિજ શ્રીહસ્તાક્ષરે લખેલા
શ્રીટિપ્પણીજીના મૂલ પુસ્તકજી ત્યાં બિરાજે છે. અને આજ પુસ્તકનો ઉપન્યાસ શ્રીપુરુષોત્તમજી પાંડુ-
લિખન તરીકે કરે છે.”
Besides tracing the original of टिप्पणी, some of the other important re-
sults of this genius for research which has put the whole Sampradāya in
great obligation to him might be summed up as under:—
2. भरुची वैष्णवs give the date of श्रीमद्वल्लभाचार्य's birth as, 1529, and not 1535,
and the place of birth as चोदामन्न and not चंपारण्य. Mulchandra got an old manus-
cript of कलोल from these भरुचीs in which one old श्लोक ( about 3rd or 4th ) about
नामकरण or ordinary matter was deleted and this श्लोक specially mentioning date
and place was substituted, scratching out the old one. There was not the
slightest necessity of scratching out the old श्लोक but the writer purposely did
it with an ulterior motive. The manuscript was returned and since then
it is not produced by वैष्णव उत्सवलाल भरुची though repeatedly demanded. From
the time we saw the mss., we were convinced about the interpolation, thus
leaving no doubt that the date given by भरुचीs 1529 is not correct, as also
the place चोदामान.
3. Very little was known to the सम्प्रदाय about श्रीकृष्णचन्द्रजी. It was he
who pointed out the deep obligation under which श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी was to his गुरु for
adopting the comparative method of writing, to unearth and publish as an
appendix to Vol. III of भाष्यप्रकाशरश्मि, कृष्णचन्द्रजी's टीका on गुणोपसंहारपाद, and to
draw attention to the different इतिश्री's in the भाष्यप्रकाशिकावृत्ति showing which
portion was written by श्रीकृष्णचन्द्रजी himself and which was collected, set right
or written by श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी.
2026

( 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

( 28 )
8. He collected टीकाs of श्रीगुसांईजी on सिद्धान्तमुक्तावली and pointed out that
श्रीगुसांईजी had revised the टीका at least four times.
9. It was he who first found out that श्रीव्रजराजजी of the 1st house wrote
his टीकाs and sent them to his गुरु श्रीवल्लभजी of the 5th house who made many
changes in them. The copies made from the original became known as
श्रीव्रजराजजी's टीकाs and those that were altered became known as श्रीवल्लभजी's टीकाs.
10. He went to श्रीनाथद्वार, identified the fourth अध्याय of भाष्य as written
out wholly by श्रीगुसांईजी, in which second interpretation of 1st two सूत्रs is
subsequently added, thus conclusively showing that the whole was written
by श्रीगुसांईजी.
11. He found out फलप्रकरणप्रकाश in the हस्ताक्षर of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी and published
the same.
12. He collected two copies of भाष्यप्रकाश, first in श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी's own hand
and got and identified a subsequent copy of प्रकाश in which additions and
alterations were made by श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी. He adopted for publication the final
copy of प्रकाश and hence we find differences in प्रकाश and रश्मि, as रश्मिकार श्रीगोपेश्वरजी
had got only the first copy of प्रकाश with him.
13. He threw new light on श्रीगुसांईजी's life, which is published above
with dates as traced by him.
14. He found out that the सुवर्णमेखला that श्रीवल्लभाचार्यजी presented was
not to श्रीविठ्ठलनाथजी of पंढरपुर, but it was to श्रीविठ्ठलनाथजी of विजयनगर, where there
was a temple of श्रीविठ्ठलनाथजी.
15. He obtained from श्रीब्रजरत्नलालजी of सुरत the will of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी and
published the same.
16. He collected and published several खतपत्रेxs in पुष्टिभक्तिसुधा and वेणुनाद.
17. He laboured hard and succeeded in collecting रश्मि, the monumen-
tal work of श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी and with the help of श्रीगोकुलनाथजी of बडा मन्दिर, Bombay,
he arranged for publication of the same.
On account of his wide knowledge about the history of the सम्प्रदाय
together with a clear preception of the facts of the case put before him he
was consulted by गोस्वामिs in their cases, and his services were ulitised by S'ri
Gokulnāthji of Bombay and his son S'rī Krishņajivanji in Madras and
Dharangaon cases, in both of which they succeeded, and also by Shrī Gope-
shwarji who also won his case at Madras.
Again, if there was an attack against the पुष्टिसम्प्रदाय and his presence
was required at any place he never refused, but started immediately. He
had thus to go to सिहोर (near Indore) Mehemdabad, Patan, Savali and
other places.
2028

( 29 )

The necessity of a Research Institute for the सम्प्रदाय was recognised
through the efforts of Mulchandra by Shri Tikayat Mahārāja of Nathadwara,
and Shrī Vallabhāchāryajī, son of S'rī Devakinandanji offered him
a decent block of four rooms in Chandrabag, and Mulchandra went to
live there in Chaitra of 1983. But God willed it otherwise. He fell ill,
went to Broach during the Summer vacation in High Court, and when he
returned in June 1927, he had not thoroughly recovered. He was attacked
with unbearable neuralgic pain in the head on 18th June 1927, and he
passed away on 26th June 1927.
Though he died young, his abilities as a great Scholar were
recognised by Oriental scholars as well as Sāmpradāyika scholars. Mr.
Woodroffe, Mr. Keith, the late Mr. Tansukhram Mansukhram Tripathi,
Anant Shastri of Shanti Niketan, Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya, Bal Shastri
and Nandkishore Shastri all acknowledged his scholarship. Mr. Tansukhram
was always delighted with his conversation, and gave him from his vast collec-
tion whatever manuscript or book was required by him. Mr. Keshav Harshad
Dhruva was so much delighted to read his introduction of शृङ्गाररसमण्डन that he
came to see him, and expressed a desire to read with him साम्प्रदायिक works,
and दयारामनो अक्षरदेह was entrusted to him by Mr. Govardhanram's brother to
make suitable changes for the second edition.
The guiding principle of his life was ‘अतोऽन्यदार्तम्’ a phrase in the अन्तर्यामि-
ब्राह्मण of बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद्, meaning ‘Everything else except God is painful.’ He
was born tired with the world, for which he had a deep-rooted disgust, and
he had realised from very early age that real आनन्द was in आनन्दमय भगवान् only.
There was therefore a touch of cynicism in his words, which were mildly
sarcastic even when talking with men most highly placed in life, and a sort
of non-attachment in all his worldly deeds. But his spirit was always young,
buoyant and playful, and one enjoyed innocent, slightly mischievous joy
in his company.
He had a very noble heart. Many Brahmins and friends came to him
for recommendation-letters or support, and he did whatever he could for
them. We were sometimes even puzzled to see how he could help one who
had done him wrong or abused him. The whole of the Nirnaya Sagar Press,
the Proprietor, Manager, Shastri, and Compositors, all loved him, and they
feel a void in their daily life without his cheerful presence. The composi-
tors would whisper in your ears how he had helped them, and allowed their
pro-notes to be time-barred. We admired the nobility of his heart when we
saw him working very hard for the success of a प्रस्ताव at the house of a very
valued friend of his, whose conduct towards him was by God’s will inexpli-
cably strict, at another time hurrying to do him a good turn at considerable
sacrifice, and a third time moving heaven and earth to carry out a special
desire of his, forgetting considerable pecuniary loss that he had to suffer.
It was due to this nobility that he freely acknowledged whatever help
he received in his work by way of money, manuscripts or cooperation.

2029

( 30 )
This leads us to note another important trait of his, which was
complete आश्रय, viz., willing dependence on the will and wisdom of the Lord,
at all times, however critical and in all matters, however important. His
mind was therefore always at ease, and he was never oppressed with burden
or weight on his head for anything whatever. “भगवदिच्छा सर्वत्र मूलम्, न बुद्ध्यादिदोषाः
शङ्कनीयाः ।” सु. ११. १. १८. This was ingrained in him, and hence under most
trying circumstances, he was most light-hearted.
This आश्रय resulted in other important traits, viz., अभय, स्वमान and निःस्वार्थ,
fearlessness, self-respect and self-sacrifice. Though he had nothing, he seemed
to posses everything, he could talk straight to a king on equal footing, and
while engaged in सम्प्रदायसाहित्यसेवा, in his small room, he acted like a happy
king, surrounded by co-working companions, all merry-making, sometimes
sitting two on broken chairs, or comfortably couched on the broad handles
of a broken easy-chair. The chairs were sometimes discarded and heaped
out of the room near the door, for making room for men. His children
cried and ran to him to escape the wrath of the mother, and insisted on sitting
on his table, full of old manuscripts, or in his lap, while he was deciphering
some knotty passage in an old manuscript. The mother of the children per-
haps silently cursed the man for his neglect of the house and its inmates, and
even expressed her disapprobation in sharp significant words. This was all
well as it was, because it was God's will, which is always best, and the work
of comparing and correcting manuscripts, sometimes five, sometimes ten at
a time, went on till midnight with the help of a jewel-lamp in the middle.
गोस्वामी श्रीब्रजरत्नलालजी of Surat, as well as most prominent personages and वैष्णवs
from Kathiawad, Sind, Culcutta, Nainital, Madras saw him in this room.
The difference between the small room and the great man, who was doing
the abstruse work of deciphering and publishing old manuscripts was
patent to all.
This आश्रय and धैर्य resulting from it kept him always collected, though
there may be the greatest cause for losing one's temper. If there was a
caste-dinner at his place, and there is none to work and no invitations are
sent, he is calm; if there is a procession, and no tom-toms are available, he is
calm; if people did not pay the money due to him, it was God's will; if
members of the family are laid up with illness, if he is unjustly attacked in
news-papers, he is not the least disturbed. He goes on quietly with his
self-imposed work, with a concentration of mind and with a non-attachment
to surroundings (असंग) simply marvellous. This concentration continued
even in sleep, and then naturally he got dreams. His little room was filled
with hallowed light (so he said and we fully believe him), and he saw, (at
any rate he believed he saw ) at one time श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी and at other times other
great persons or भक्तs. When he woke next morning after such a dream,
there was a joyous smile on his face which was unmistakable, and the writer
can never forget the innocent smile on his face on the morning of the last
day of his life on this Earth, the 26th June, which clearly showed that he
had some दर्शन in dream.
2030

( 31 )

His sudden death was a great loss to the सम्प्रदाय, and the hearts of al-
most all वैष्णवs were moved by this great loss. Two telegrams were received
from गोस्वामी श्रीगोवर्धनलालजी तिलकायित, one to take care of his wife and children,
and the other to hold a meeting in which he promised to send his representa-
tive. A similar telegram was received from लालबाबा श्रीदामोदरलालजी to the same
effect, and many others followed in quick succession. A meeting was
immediately held in Bada Mandir, Bombay, and गोस्वामी श्रीगोकुलनाथजी announced
Rs. 500 as his subscription to the fund for a memorial to be raised after
him. Mr. Ranchhoddas Patwari also paid Rs. 251. Meetings were also
held at Ahmedabad, Dabhoi, Sankheda, Mangrol and a dozen other places,
and a grand meeting was held in Bombay on 24th July 1927 in Mulji Jetha
Market Hall under the presidentship of the Hon'able Mr. Justice Krishnalal
Mohanlal Jhaveri. Goswami S'ri Gokulnāthji moved the first resolution
[L14

( 32 )
After his death his work has been continued by us, his co-workers,
inspired by his noble example. Having worked with him for a number of
years, we know the difficulties in the way, as well as the means to overcome
them. Sheth Lalji Naranji asked us to go on with the work, and we continued
it from the place where he had left it. He had given orders to print four
forms of this Volume before his death, and we have begun from the fifth
form. This volume would have been published long ago, but for the delay
of the press. The present volume completes the third Adhyaya of Anu
Bhashya, the Sādhanadhyāya, and the reader will immediately perceive the
wide difference in the subjects for discussion taken up by श्रीवल्लभाचार्य, differing
from all the previous Acharyas. The work of the fourth Adhyāya has been
already taken in hand. Professor Maganlal Ganpatram Shastri M. A.,
helps us very cheerfully whenever approached and Shastri Kalyanji Kanji
has offered his help in all matters, and we have gladly accepted the same.
All the other Shastris and Pandits of the सम्प्रदाय have expressed their desire
to help us in any way they can, and by the grace of God, we hope to proceed
with the work without any serious trouble.
With feelings of joy, we offer this fruit of our labour of love at the
Lotus Feet of Lord S'rī Krishņa.
Dhirajlal Varajdas Sankalia.
Jamnadas Kanji Morparia.
Govardhandas Pragji.
Hiralal Moolji.
Purshottam Kanji Morparia.
2032

श्रीकृष्णाय नमः ।
श्रीगोपीजनवल्लभाय नमः ।
श्रीमदाचार्यचरणकमलेभ्यो नमः ।
श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्राणुभाष्यम् ।
भाष्यप्रकाश-रश्मि-परिवृंहितम् ।
तृतीयोऽध्यायः ।
चतुर्थः पादः ।
पुरुषार्थोऽतः शब्दादिति बादरायणः ॥ १ ॥ (३-४-१.)
उपासनाभेदेऽप्युपास्याभेदाच्छाखान्तरोक्तधर्माणामप्युपसंहारः कर्तुमुचित इति
पूर्वपादे निरूपितमिति तन्न्यायेनोत्तरकाण्डप्रतिपाद्यब्रह्मफलकसर्वात्मभावेऽपि
पूर्वकाण्डप्रतिपादितकर्मणामुपसंहारः प्राप्नोति न वेत्यधुना विचार्यते । विधि-
भाष्यप्रकाशः
पुरुषार्थोतःशब्दादिति बादरायणः ॥ १ ॥ अथ तुरीयपादं विवरिषवः सङ्ग-
तिबोधनाय पूर्वपादार्थमनुवदन्त एतत्पादार्थमाहुः उपासनेत्यादि । 'फलमत उपपत्ते'रित्यत्र
हेतुव्यपदेशेन जैमिनिमतनिरासपूर्वकं परमेश्वरस्यैव कारयितृत्वं फलदातृत्वं च समर्थयित्वा,
ततोऽनन्तरूपस्य भगवतस्तत्तत्फलदानाय साक्षात्कारो यथा भवति, तदर्थं तत्तदुपासनमुक्तम् ।
तेन तत्तदुपास्वरूपसाक्षात्काररूपविद्यासिद्धौ परमेश्वरात् फलं भवतीति सिद्धम् । तथा
उपासनाः कथं कर्तव्या इत्यपेक्षायां तं तं मार्गं स्वस्वाधिकारं तत्तद्भगवद्रूपं चानुरुध्य ते ते
तत्तत्स्वरूपगुणास्तत्तदुपासनास्वरूपनिर्वाहकत्वादन्तरङ्गा इत्यन्तरङ्गविचारेण तत्तद्गुणानां बुद्धौ
विषयीकरणरूपो गुणोपसंहार उक्तः । तत्र 'उपसंहारोऽर्थाभेदा'दिति सूत्रेऽर्थपदस्य वस्तु-
वाचकतामादाय उपासनाभेदेऽप्युपास्यवस्त्वभेदाद्यथा शाखान्तरोक्तधर्माणामप्युपसंहारः कर्तुं
युक्त इति निरूपितम्, तथा अस्मिन् पादे उपासनाया बहिरङ्गाणामाश्रमादीनां विचारे
उपसंहारसूत्रीयार्थपदस्य प्रयोजनवाचकतामादाय ब्रह्मदर्शनरूपफलैक्यात् तन्न्यायेन उत्तरकाण्डो-
क्तब्रह्मफलकसर्वात्मभावेऽपि पूर्वकाण्डोक्तकर्मणामुपसंहारः । स च कर्मणां तत्तदुपासनोपकारकतया
बुद्धौ विषयीकरणरूपः करणार्थं प्राप्नोति । 'यज्ञो दानं तपः कर्म न त्याज्यं कार्यमेव तत् ।
रश्मिः ।
पुरुषार्थोऽतःशब्दादिति बादरायणः ॥ १ ॥ प्रयोजनेति । फलवाचकतामादाय ।
'दर्शनाच्चे'तिगतसूत्रविचारेणाहुः ब्रह्मदर्शनेति । अन्तरङ्गबहिरङ्गोपासनयोः ब्रह्मदर्शनरूपफलैक्याद्धेतोः ।
तन्न्यायेनेति । एकफलकसाधनयोः परस्परं गुणोपसंहारन्यायेन । 'तन्न्यायेने'ति भाष्यविवरणं
ब्रह्मफलकेति । ननु भजनानन्दावाप्तिफलकः सर्वात्मभावः कथं ब्रह्मफलकः सर्वात्मभाव इति चेत् ।
न । अग्रे उपपादयिष्यमाणत्वात् । तेन 'ब्रह्मफलके'त्यत्र परमश्वेतिफलकेति बोध्यम् । कर्मणा-
१. भगवद्धर्मा अन्तरङ्गाणि ।
५५ ब्र० सू० २०

४३४ श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्राणुभाष्यम् । [अ० ३ पा० ४ अ० १ सू० १.
पक्षे तत्सहकृतस्यास्य फलसाधकत्वमिति सिध्यति । निषेधपक्षे तु केवलस्येति ।
इममेव पक्षं सिद्धान्तत्वेनाह पुरुषार्थ इत्यादिना । सिद्धान्ते ज्ञाते ने तत्र पूर्वपक्ष-
सम्भव इत्यादी तमेवाह । अतः सर्वात्मभावादेव केवलात् पुरुषार्थः सिध्यति ।
कुतः । शब्दात् । श्रुतेरित्यर्थः । श्रुतिस्तु 'नायमात्मा प्रवचनेने'त्युपक्रम्य, 'यमे-
वैष वृणुत' इत्यादिका, 'ब्रह्मविदामोति पर'मित्यादिका, 'तमेवं विद्वानमृत इह
भवती'ति, सनत्कुमारनारदसंवादे 'यत्र नान्यत् पश्यती'त्याद्यात्मिका छान्दो-
ग्यश्रुतिश्च । एतदादिश्रुतिषु पूर्वोक्तरीत्या केवलस्यैव भगवद्भावस्य फलसाधकत्वं
श्रूयते इति तथा । अत्र 'फलमत उपपत्ते'रित्यत्रेवोपपत्तिं हेतुत्वेनानुक्त्वा, श्रुति-
पदं चानुक्त्वा, शब्दपदं यदुक्तवान्, तेन श्रुतिस्मृत्यात्मकः सर्वोपि प्रमाण-
शब्दो हेतुत्वेन व्यासाभिमत इति ज्ञायते । तेनं 'केवलेन हि भावेन गोप्यो
गावः खगा मृगाः । येऽन्ये मूढधियो नागाः सिद्धा मामीयुरञ्जसा । यज्ञ योगेन
सांख्येन दानव्रततपोऽध्वरैः । व्याख्यास्वाध्यायसंन्यासैः प्राप्नुयात् यत्नवानपि'
इत्यादिरूपा स्मृतिरपि संगृह्यते । एतेन श्रुत्यादिप्रमाणवादिनामिदमेवाभिम-
तम्, तद्विरुद्धवादिनामितोऽन्यदिति तेषामप्रामाणिकत्वं ज्ञाप्यते । अत एव
भाष्यप्रकाशः।
यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैव पावनानि मनीषिणाम् । एतान्यपि तु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा फलं तथा ।
कर्तव्यानीति मे पार्थ निश्चितं मतमुत्तम'मिति गीतावाक्यात् । सहस्रसमे सत्रे हिरण्मयशकुनि-
रूपब्रह्मदर्शनस्य तत्र श्रवणात् । नाम्यादीनां यज्ञेषु भगवत्प्रादुर्भावस्य श्रीभागवतेऽप्युक्तत्वाच्च ।
अथवा । 'यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः' 'भक्त्या त्वनन्यया शक्य' इत्यादिषु साधनान्तरव्युदासाच्च
प्राप्नोतीति सन्देहे, अधुना प्रथमाधिकरणे विचार्यते । तथाच शेषिणेषभावः सङ्गतिरित्यर्थः । ननु
गुणानामिव कर्मणामुपासनास्वरूपनिर्वाहकत्वाभावेनानावश्यकत्वात् किं तद्विचारेणेत्याकाङ्क्षायां
विचारफलं पादार्थ वदन्तः सूत्रमवतार्य व्याकुर्वन्ति विधीत्यादि । इममिति । निषेधपक्षम् । तथाच
विद्यासामर्थ्यबोधनायायं विचार इत्यर्थः । सिद्धान्तेनाधिकरणोपक्रमस्य तात्पर्यमाहुः सिद्धान्त
इत्यादि । 'पूर्वं तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशा'दित्यत्र सिद्धान्तिनः सूक्ष्मदर्शित्वस्यावधारितवाच्च-
बेत्येतदर्थं तमेवाहेत्यर्थः । शब्दशब्दप्रयोगतात्पर्यमाहुः अत्रेत्यादि । संग्रहेण यत् सिद्धं तदाहुः
एतेनेत्यादि । अभिमतमिति । तात्पर्यगोचरम् । तद्विरुद्धवादिनामिति । तत्तात्पर्यविरुद्ध-
वादिनाम् । अप्रामाणिकत्वमिति । प्रमाणतात्पर्यानभिज्ञत्वम् । बादरायणपदोक्ततात्पर्यमाहुः
रश्मिः।
मिति । सहस्रसमादीनाम् । कर्मस्वरूपं फलैक्यार्थं फलं वाहुः सहस्रसम इति । श्रीभागवत
इति । पञ्चमस्कन्धे । शेषीति । पूर्वोत्तरपादयोर्भगवद्धर्मबहिराधर्मप्रतिपादकयोः तथा । शेषीणो
भगवद्धर्माः शेषाः बहिरङ्गा वर्णाश्रमधर्माः । इयं प्रसङ्गसङ्गत्यन्तर्गता । पादार्थमिति । बहिरङ्गवर्णा-
श्रमधर्मरूपम् । सूत्रमवेति । सूत्राभासमवतार्य सूत्रं व्याकुर्वन्तीत्यर्थः । विधीत्यादीति । कर्मणा-
मुपसंहारः प्राप्नोतीति विधिपक्षः । कर्मसहकृतस्यास्य सर्वात्मभावस्य । केवलस्येति । सर्वात्मभावस्य ।
केवलसेति पक्षप्रयोजनमाहुः तथा चेति । विद्या सर्वात्मभावः तस्याः सामर्थ्य असहायशूरत्वं तस्य
बोधनायायं नैषेधपाक्षिको विचार इति प्रयोजनमित्यर्थः । पूर्वं त्विति । द्वितीयपादसमाप्तौ वर्तते
१. नेति लुप्तम् । २. येन ।
2034

editions:
Top: Bhashya.
Middle: Bhashyaprakasha.
Bottom: Rashmi!
In Rashmi, the pratikas quote from Prakash!
Wait! In Prakash line 8: अस्यां श्रुतौ 'तमसः परस्ता'दित्य-
Wait, where does Prakash continue?
Look at line 8: दित्य- at the end.
Wait, is that a hyphen?
Let's look at दित्य: द ि त ् य and a dot or a dash?
Wait, in line 9: स्य ।!
Wait, is line 9 Rashmi? Yes, रश्मिः । is the heading above it!
Wait, Rashmi starts with: स्य । तमेवेति ।?
Why स्य?
Ah! इत्यस्य! The pratika is [इत्य]स्य!
Wait, did Prakash end on the previous page or did Rashmi's sentence start on the previous page?
Wait, no, look at the very first word of line 9:
Is it स्य । or स्म ।?
Look at the letter: स with a loop below? No, it's स्य! A स with a य attached: स्य!
Wait, why would Rashmi start

४१६ श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्राणुभाष्यम् । [अ० ३ पा० ४ अ० १ सू० २.
भावेनेवेति ज्ञापनाय फलपदमनुक्त्वा पुरुषार्थपदमुक्तम् । एवं सत्यस्य सूत्रस्या-
र्थान्तरमपि व्यासाभिमतमिति ज्ञायते । तथा सत्ययं श्लिष्टः प्रयोगः । तथाहि ।
पुरुषार्थो भगवानेव । कुतः । अतःशब्दात् । अतःपदविशिष्टश्रुतिवाक्यादि-
त्यर्थः । तैत्तिरीयोपनिषत्सु पठ्यते 'अतः परं नान्यदणीयस५ हि परात् परं यन्म-
हतो महान्तम्, यदेकमव्यक्तमनन्तरूपं विश्वं पुराणं तमसः परस्ता'दिति ॥ १ ॥
अथात्र प्रत्यवतिष्ठते ।
शेषत्वात् पुरुषार्थवादो यथान्येष्विति जैमिनिः ॥ २ ॥
विष्णोरिज्यत्वेन कर्मशेषत्वात् तत्स्वरूपज्ञानपूर्वको यागः फलातिशयहेतु-
रिति तन्माहात्म्यमुच्यत इत्यर्थवादरूपं तत् । अत्र दृष्टान्तमाह यथान्येष्विति ।
भाष्यप्रकाशः।
नेनानुपाधित्वबोधनात् स्वतो विरुद्धधर्माधारत्वं बोध्यते । 'परात् पर'मित्यनेनाक्षरादुत्तमत्वम् ।
तथाचाक्षरात् परो यः, स एव परमपुरुषार्थ इति सिध्यति । एवं व्याख्यानद्वयेन केवलविद्याया
एव पुरुषार्थपर्यवसायित्वम्, पुरुषोत्तमस्यैव च परमपुरुषार्थत्वं बोधितम् ॥ १ ॥
शेषत्वात् पुरुषार्थवादो यथान्येष्विति जैमिनिः ॥ २ ॥ सूत्रमवतारयन्ति अथे-
त्यादि । सिद्धान्तसूत्रे सर्वात्मभावस्य स्वतन्त्रतया पुरुषार्थपर्यवसायित्वे परब्रह्मण एव च परम-
पुरुषार्थत्वे दर्शितेपि हेतुव्यपदेशविषयश्रुतौ फलदित्सया कारयितृत्वस्योक्तत्वात् क्रियैव फलम्,
छान्दोग्ये कर्माङ्गोपासनानामेव पूर्वमुपक्रान्तत्वादन्यासामपि कर्मशेषत्वेन फलवत्त्वम्, ईश्वरस्य
च तच्छेषतयैव फलदत्वमित्याशयेन पूर्वमीमांसक उक्तैर्र्थै प्रतिकूलतयावस्थितो भवतीत्यर्थः ।
सूत्रं व्याकुर्वन्ति विष्णोरित्यादि ।
अयमर्थः । पूर्वपादे कर्माङ्गोपासनानां निर्णये तु न पूर्वकाण्डविरोधः । यत्पुनरात्मज्ञा-
नादेः सर्वात्मभावस्य च स्वातन्त्र्येण पुरुषार्थपर्यवसायित्वं परब्रह्मणः परमपुरुषार्थत्वं चेत्युक्तम् ।
रश्मिः।
सतीत्यादीति । फलपदमनुक्त्वा पुरुषार्थपदे दत्ते सति । अयमिति । पुरुषार्थ इत्ययम् ।
भगवानिति । जिज्ञासासूत्राद्ब्रह्मेत्यनुवर्तत इति भावः । एवकारस्तु 'शिष्टेष्वि'ति सूत्रान्मण्डूकप्लुत्या
षकारमनुवर्त्यावधारणार्थे प्रयुक्तः । अनुपाधीति । तमो माया उपाधिः । तदुक्तं ब्रह्मविद्योपनिषदि
'ब्रह्मविद्यां प्रवक्ष्यामि सर्वज्ञानमनुत्तमम् । यत्रोत्पत्ति लयं चैव ब्रह्मविष्णुमहेश्वरा'दिति । तम उपाधि-
र्माहेश्वरत्वे ॥ १ ॥
शेषत्वात् पुरुषार्थवादो यथान्येष्विति जैमिनिः ॥ २ ॥ हेतुव्यपदेशेति ।
द्वितीयपादसमाप्तिस्थस्य 'पूर्वं तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशा'दिति 'सूत्रस्य शेषः । विषयश्रुतिस्तु 'एष उ
एव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषत एष उ एवासाधु कर्म कारयति यमधो
निनीषत' इति । परस्मैपद्यपि । न पूर्वेति । चित्तशोधकत्वेन ज्ञानोपयोगवत् वेदान्तोपासनाभिश्चि-
त्तशोधे कर्मोपयोगात् दृढत्वम् । 'इत्याह नास्तिक्यनिराकरिष्णुरिति वाक्यात् । न पूर्वकाण्डविरोधः ।
आत्मज्ञानादेरिति । 'तरति शोकमात्मवि'दिति सर्वात्मभावप्राकरणिकश्रुत्युक्तमात्मज्ञानम् । चरम-
2036

त्वम्, तस्मात् । 'तत्तद्रूपज्ञाने'त्यादिवक्ष्यमाणभाष्योक्तरीत्या तत्तादृशम्, अतस्तत्र Wait,कर्मशेषत्वम्vsकर्मत्वम्: it is कर्मशेषत्वम्`!

• Line 16: पुरुषार्थत्ववाद इत्यर्थः । विष्णोरिज्यत्वं ब्रह्मत्वं च शतदूषणीकारोपन्यस्तात् सङ्कर्षणकाण्ड-

• Line 17: समाप्तिस्थात् 'स विष्णुराह हि' 'तत् ब्रह्मेत्याचक्षते' इति सूत्रद्वयात् सिध्यतीति मुख्यतया तस्यैव

• Line 18: शेषत्वमत्र व्याख्यातम् । अन्येषां च शेषत्वात् तत्फलस्यार्थवादत्वं जैमिनिना चतुर्थस्य द्वितीय-

• Line 19: पादे उक्तं 'द्रव्यसंस्कारकर्मसु परार्थत्वात् फलश्रुतिरर्थवादः स्या'दिति । तदुदाहरणं च 'यस्य

• Line 20: पर्णमयी'त्यादिनोक्तम् ॥ २ ॥

• Line 21: रश्मिः ।

• Line 22: `वृत्तिरूपमादिपदार्थः । शेषेति । पूर्वमीमांसातृतीयाध्यायस्यारम्भसूत्रं 'अथातः शेषलक्षणम्' । तस्

प्रामाणिकं च मनुत इति तन्मतमनुवदन्निममप्यनूक्तवान् व्यासः। ब्रह्मविदां
त्यागावश्यकत्वे गार्हस्थ्यमेतेषां न स्यादिति भावः। उक्तश्रुतिस्तु कर्मण्यशक्तानां
तेषां त्यागमनुवदति। 'लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थाये'ति श्रुतेर्लोकसंग्रहार्थं तत्करण-
मिति न वक्तुं शक्यम् ॥ ३ ॥
तच्छ्रुतेः ॥ ४ ॥
ब्रह्मविदः कर्माचारनिरूपकश्रुतेरित्यर्थः। सा च 'जनको ह वैदेहो बहुदक्षि-
णेन यज्ञेनेज' इत्यादिरूपा। तथाच ज्ञानेनैवार्थसिद्धिर्यदि स्यात्, तदा तद्भूत
आयाससाध्ये कर्मणि प्रवृत्तिर्न स्यादिति भावः ॥ ४ ॥
समन्वारम्भणात् ॥ ५ ॥
'तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारभेते' इति श्रुतिः फलारम्भे विद्याकर्मणोः
साहित्यं दर्शयतीति न स्वातन्त्र्यं विद्यायाम् ॥ ५ ॥
तद्वतो विधानात् ॥ ६ ॥
'ब्रह्मिष्ठो ब्रह्मा दर्शपूर्णमासयोस्तं वृणीत' इति कल्पश्रुत्या ब्रह्मविदो ब्रह्म-
त्वेन वरणं विधीयत इति ब्रह्मज्ञानस्यार्त्विज्याधिकारसम्पादकत्वात् कर्मशेषत्वमे-
वेत्यर्थः ॥ ६ ॥
भाष्यप्रकाशः।
आचारदर्शनात् ॥ ३ ॥ सूत्रचतुष्टयमवतारयन्ति ननु तमित्यादि। उत्तरं पठ-
तीति। उक्ताशङ्कायां विद्यायाः पुरुषार्थत्वं वारयितुमग्रिमसूत्राणि वक्तीत्यर्थः। सूत्रं व्याकु-
र्वन्तः प्रथमत आचारमेव कुतो वदतीत्यत आहुः ब्रह्मविदामित्यादि। प्रामाणिकं च मनुत
इति। 'यदेव विद्यये'तिश्रुत्युपोद्वलकत्वेन तथा मनुते। तर्हि 'तमेव विदित्वे'त्यादिश्रुतेः का
गतिरित्यत आह उक्तेत्यादि। ननु 'प्रव्राज'श्रुतेरशक्ताधिकारकत्ववत् कर्मकरणश्रुतेर्लोकसंग्र-
हार्थत्वस्यापि शक्यवचनत्वाद्भेदं साधीय इत्यत आह लोकेत्यादि। तथाच, आचारदर्शनान्य-
थानुपपत्त्या तथा कल्प्यत इत्यर्थः।
अन्ये त्वाचारदर्शनसूत्रे 'जनको ह वा' इति श्रुतिम्, द्वितीये च 'यदेव विद्यये'त्युदाह-
रन्ति। तच्चिन्त्यम्। द्वितीयसूत्रवैयर्थ्यापत्तेः ॥ ३ ॥
तच्छ्रुतेः ॥ ४ ॥ समन्वारम्भणात् ॥ ५ ॥
तद्वतो विधानात् ॥ ६ ॥ एतद्भाष्यं सुगमम् ॥ ६ ॥
रश्मिः।
आचारदर्शनात् ॥ ३ ॥ अग्रिमेति। चत्वारि। यदेवेति। आचारसेति बोध्यम्।
भाष्ये। तन्मतमिति। जैमिनिमतम्। व्यासः स्वमतमनुवदन् इमं जैमिन्याद्याचारमप्यनूक्तवान्।
एतेषामिति। जैमिनिजनकमभृतीनाम्। द्वितीयेति। तदर्थस्याचारे निवेशादिति भावः ॥ ३ ॥
तच्छ्रुतेः। समन्वारम्भणात्। तद्वतो विधानात् ॥ ४ ॥ ५ ॥ ६ ॥ सुगममिति।
जनको ह वा इति। मध्वित्थं याज्ञवल्क्यादिति बृहदारण्यके। फलारम्भ इति। तमिल्यनेन
देहत्वावच्छिन्नोपादानम्। न स्वातन्त्र्यमिति। किन्तु कर्मसाहित्यम्। कल्पश्रुत्येति। अङ्गकल्पश्रुत्या।
अन्या वा। एवं सुगमम् ॥ ६ ॥
१. तदाचारं च प्रामाणिकं मनुत इति, तदाचारं प्रामाणिकमिति च मनुत इति पाठौ।

भाष्यप्रकाश-रश्मि-परिवृंहितम् । ४२९
ननु 'यदहरेव विरजेत्, तदहरेव प्रव्रजेत्, गृहाद्वा प्रव्रजेद्वनाद्वा'त्यादिश्रु-
तिभ्यो विहितत्वाविशेषात् कर्मतत्त्यागयोरैच्छिको विकल्पोऽङ्गीकार्यः, अतो न
शेषिशेषभाव इत्यत उत्तरं पठति ।
नियमाच्च ॥ ७ ॥
'आश्विनं धूम्रल्ललाममालभेत, यो दुर्ब्राह्मणः सोमं पिपासेत्', 'ऐन्द्राग्नं
पुनरुत्सृष्टमालभेत, य आतृतीयात् पुरुषात् सोमं न पिबेत्, विच्छिन्नो वा एतस्य
सोमपीथो यो ब्राह्मणः सन्नात्तृतीयात् पुरुषात् सोमं न पिबति, 'यावज्जीवमग्नि-
होत्रं जुहुया'दित्यादिश्रुतिभ्यो यथा कर्मकरणे नियमः श्रूयते, न तथा तत्त्याग
इति नोक्तपक्षः साधुरित्यर्थः । चकारात् 'नियतस्य तु संन्यासः कर्मणो नोपप-
द्यते । मोहात् तस्य परित्यागस्तामसः परिकीर्तित' इत्यादिरूपा स्मृतिः समुच्ची-
यते । त्यागविधिरशक्तविषय इत्युक्तमिति प्राप्ते ॥ ७ ॥
प्रतिब्रूते ।
अधिकोपदेशात्तु बादरायणस्यैवं तद्दर्शनात् ॥ ८ ॥
तुशब्दः पूर्वपक्षं व्यवच्छिनत्ति । यदुक्तं 'शेषत्वात् पुरुषार्थवाद' इति,
भाष्यप्रकाशः।
नियमाच्च ॥ ७ ॥ सूत्रमवतारयन्ति नन्वित्यादि । व्याकुर्वन्ति आश्विनमित्यादि ।
अत्र 'दुर्ब्राह्मण' इति 'विच्छिन्न' इति पदाभ्यामकरणे निन्दा बोध्यते, तेन च नियमेन नित्यत्वं
कर्मणो व्यक्तीभवति, तथाग्रे यावज्जीवाधिकारेण । सूत्रपञ्चकोक्तं निगमयन्ति त्यागेत्यादि ।
इति प्राप्ते इति । एवंप्रकारेण ब्रह्मणस्तद्विद्यायाः कैमुतिकेन जीवविद्यायाश्च कर्मशेषत्वे प्राप्ते ।
अन्ये तु 'तच्छ्रुते'रित्यत्र विद्यायाः कर्मशेषत्वाय 'यदेव विद्यये'ति श्रुतिमुदाहरन्ति,
'तद्वतो विधाना'दित्यत्र 'आचार्यकुलाद्वेदमधीत्ये'ति छान्दोग्यसमाप्तिश्रुत्या वेदार्थज्ञानवतः
कर्माधिकारं व्याकुर्वन्ति, 'नियमा'दित्यत्र 'कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः । एवं
त्वयि नान्यथेतोऽस्ति न कर्म लिप्यते नरे' इतीशावास्यश्रुतिं जरामर्यसत्रश्रुतिं चोदाहरन्ति ।
तन्मते विद्यायाः कर्मशेषत्वमिति पूर्वपक्षः ॥ ७ ॥
अधिकोपदेशात्तु बादरायणस्यैवं तद्दर्शनात् ॥ ८ ॥ परिहारं व्याकुर्वन्ति
तुशब्द इत्यादि । पूर्वपक्षमिति । ईश्वर इज्यत्वात् कर्मशेष इति पक्षम् । कर्मसाम्यमिति ।
रश्मिः ।
नियमाच्च ॥ ७ ॥ आश्विनमित्यादीति । इन्द्राग्नी देवतेस्य । सास्य देवतेत्यण् । सोमस्य
पीथः पानं सोमपीथः । सोमस्य पीथः पानं यस्य मूर्द्ध्नः स सोमपीथो मूर्धा । कैमुतिकेनेति । ब्रह्मणस्त-
द्विद्यायाः कर्मशेषत्वे, किं वाच्यं जीवविद्यायाः कर्मशेषत्व इति न्यायप्राप्तम् । एवमिति । एवं त्वयि
न, अन्यथा इतः अस्ति । न, कर्म, लिप्यते नरे इति छेदः । लिप उपदेहे । तु-उ-अनिद् मुचादित्वात्
मुञ्च् । लिम्पति । लिप्यत इति कर्मकर्तरिप्रयोगः । विद्याया इति । न ब्रह्मणः ॥ ७ ॥
अधिकोपदेशात्तु बादरायणस्यैवं तद्दर्शनात् ॥ ८ ॥ कर्मणो ब्रह्मसाम्यमिति ।
ननु सामर्थ्याभावात् कथं कर्मसाम्ययोः समास इति चेत्, न । साम्यपदस्य ब्रह्मसाम्ये लाक्षणिकत्वात् ।
2039

तन्नोपपद्यते । कुतः । अधिकोपदेशात् । कर्मसाम्यमपि न वक्तुं शक्यं यत्र, तत्र
तच्छेषत्वं दूरापास्तम् । यत ईश्वरः कर्मणः सकाशादधिक उपदिश्यते । तथाहि ।
'स वा अयमात्मा सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः सर्वमिदं प्रशास्ति
यदिदं किञ्च, स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्नो एवासाधुना कनीया' न्नि॒त्युपक्रम्य,
अग्रे पठ्यते 'तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन विविदिषन्ति ब्रह्मचर्येण तपसा श्रद्धया यज्ञेना-
नाशकेन चैतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवत्येतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमीप्सन्तः प्रव्रज-
न्ती'त्यादि । एवं सति यज्ज्ञानसाधनत्वं यज्ञे, तस्य यज्ञशेषत्वं कथं स्यात्, किन्तु
यज्ञस्य तद्वेदनशेषत्वम् । एतेनेज्यत्वेन तच्छेषत्वं प्रत्युक्तं वेदितव्यम् । तज्ज्ञा-
नस्य यागपूर्वाङ्गत्वात् तद्विशिष्टस्य तस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानसाधनत्वात् । नच पूर्वं सामा-
न्यत इज्यज्ञानमासीत्, यज्ञेन विशेषतो ज्ञाने सति पुनर्यज्ञकरणे पूर्णं कर्मफलं
भवतीति न तच्छेषत्वमिति वाच्यम् । 'तमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवत्येतमेव प्रव्राजिनो
लोकमभीप्सतः प्रव्रजन्ती'ति श्रुतेस्तद्वेदनस्य गार्हस्थ्यविरोधित्वेन तदसम्भवात् ।
भाष्यप्रकाशः।
कर्मणो ब्रह्मसाम्यम् । 'स वा अयम्' इति श्रुतिस्तु बृहदारण्यके शारीरब्राह्मणे । एवं सतीत्यादि ।
उक्तश्रुतौ 'वेदानुवचनेने'त्यादिभिस्तृतीयाश्रुतिभिर्भगवज्ज्ञानशेषत्वे कर्मणामुक्ते सति । तस्येति ।
यज्ञशेषिणोपि शेषीभूतस्य । अधिकोपदेशेन हेतुना यत् सिद्धं तदाहुः एतेनेत्यादि । उक्तहेतुना
तत्प्रत्युक्तमित्यर्थः । तत् व्युत्पादयन्ति तज्ज्ञानस्येत्यादि । इज्यत्वेन ज्ञानस्य यागपूर्वाङ्गत्वात् पूर्वं
सत्त्वेपि तादृशज्ञानपूर्वकं यागकरणे तादृशज्ञानविशिष्टस्य यागस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानसाधनत्वात् तत्फलस्य
ज्ञानस्य यः शेषी तस्यैकदेशज्ञानशेषत्वापादने यस्य ज्ञानं यागपूर्वाङ्गं स यागशेष इति नियमो
हेतुत्वेन वक्तव्यः । स तु स्वर्गादौ व्यभिचरति । स्वर्गादेः फलत्वज्ञानं विना तदर्थके यागे प्रवृ-
त्त्यभावेन तज्ज्ञानस्य यागपूर्वाङ्गत्वेपि स्वर्गादेः फलत्वेन यागशेषत्वानङ्गीकारात् । अतस्तदप्रयो-
जकमित्यर्थः । पुनः शेषत्वमाशङ्क्य निषेधन्ति नचेत्यादि । पूर्वं गुरुमुखादध्ययने तत्तत्सामर्थ्य-
नेन स्वाध्यायत्वसम्पादने ब्रह्मण इज्यत्वेन सामान्यतो ज्ञानमासीत्, ततस्तदुद्देश्यकस्य ब्रह्मयज्ञस्य
द्रव्ययज्ञस्य च करणे विशेषतो ज्ञाने सति पुनर्यज्ञकरणे 'यदेव विद्यये'ति श्रुत्या यागस्य वीर्य-
वत्तायां पूर्णं फलं भवतीति तात्पर्यात् 'तमेतं वेदानुवचनेने'ति श्रुत्या न ब्रह्मणो यागशेष-
रश्मिः।
यज्ञेति । यज्ञशेषि भगवज्ज्ञानं तस्य शेषी विषयो भगवान् तस्येत्यर्थः । भाष्ये । तद्वेदनशेषत्वं
भगवद्वेदनशेषत्वम् । प्रकृते । उक्तहेतुनेति । आभासोक्तहेतुना तत् इज्यत्वेन कर्मशेषत्वं विष्णोः ।
इज्यत्वेनेति । विष्णोर्ज्ञानस्य । यागपूर्वाङ्गत्वं जानातीच्छति यतत इति प्रणाड्या । यागस्य यत्नत्वात् ।
फलत्वेन यागपूर्वाङ्गज्ञानम् । तत्फलस्येति । कर्मफलस्य । शेषीति । भगवान् विषयः । तस्येति ।
ज्ञानरूपस्य शेषिणः एकदेशज्ञानस्य, 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्' निरवयवत्वेपि तद्धर्मात्मकं ज्ञानं कर्म
तेन । शेषिणः कर्मशेषत्वापादने । यदि ज्ञानविषयो न स्यात्, ज्ञानशेषो न स्यादित्येवं शेषत्वापादने ।
नियममाहुः यस्येति । विष्णोः । स इति । विष्णुः । तदिति । परम्पराकर्मशेषत्वम् । ब्रह्मण
इज्यत्वेनेति । वराहरूपस्य विष्णोरिज्यत्वेन ज्ञानं वेदब्राह्मणात् । ब्रह्मयज्ञः श्रावण्यां प्रसिद्धः ।
१. भावीतिपाठः । 2040

भाष्यप्रकाश-रश्मि-परिवृंहितम् । ४४१
यश्च साध्वसाधुकर्मफलसम्बन्धरहितः, तस्य कर्तृत्वेन तथात्वमनुपपन्नम्, अतो
जीवात्मन एव तथात्वम्, न तु परस्य । नचैतयोर्वास्तवाभेदाज्जैवमिति वाच्यम् ।
वास्तवाभेदाङ्गीकारेऽप्युक्तश्रुतिभ्यस्तथात्वस्य सुवचत्वात् । वास्तवाभेदस्य पूर्वमेव
निरस्तत्वात्तमादाय ये पूर्वपक्षास्ते पूर्वपक्षा एवेत्यलमुक्त्या । 'न कर्मणा
न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमृतत्वमानशुः । परेण नाकं निहितं गुहायां
विभ्राजते यत् यतयो विशन्ती'ति श्रुत्या कर्मप्रजाधनैर्मोक्षाप्राप्तिमुक्त्वा त्यागेन
तत्प्राप्तिरुच्यते । त्यागविषयस्यान्यस्यानुक्त्या सान्निध्यात् कर्मादीनामेव त्यागो-
ऽभिप्रेतः । तथाच मुक्तोपसृप्यत्वाद्भगवत उक्तसाधनेन मुक्ताः सन्तो नाकं परेण
भाष्यप्रकाशः।
त्वनिवृत्तिरित्येवं न वाच्यम् । 'एतमेवे'त्यादितदग्रिमश्रुतेस्तादृग्ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य गार्हस्थ्यविरोधित्वेन
यज्ञासम्भवात् । तदसम्भवे तथा फलोत्पत्त्यापादनस्यापि कर्तुमशक्यत्वात् ब्रह्मणः कर्मशेषत्वं
नापादयितुं शक्यमित्यर्थः । नन्वीश्वरस्य कर्तृत्वाद्विश्वसृङ्न्यायेन यज्ञकर्तृत्वे सुखेन तच्छेषत्व-
सम्भव इत्याशङ्क्य परिहरन्ति यश्चेत्यादि । तथात्वमिति । कर्मशेषत्वम् । एकदेशिप्रतिपक्षम् ।
जीवब्रह्मैक्यमादाय पुनः शेषत्वाशङ्कायां तदुपगम्य परिहरन्ति नचैतयोरित्यादि । तथात्व-
स्येति । ईश्वरवत् कर्मशेषित्वस्य । ननु यदि जीवेश्वयोर्वास्तवाभेद उपगतः, तर्ह्येकतरपक्षपातस्य
कर्तुमयुक्तत्वादुभयमप्यस्त्विति शङ्कायां सिद्धान्ते तदनुपगमेनाहुः वास्तवाभेदस्येत्यादि ।
जीवब्रह्मणोर्हि घटाकाशमहाकाशयोरिवोपाधितो भेदः, वस्तुतस्त्वभेदः । एतादृशाभेदस्य द्विती-
याध्यायत् तृती यपादे 'अंशो नाने'त्यंशांशत्वव्यवस्थापनेन निरस्तत्वात् तमादाय ये पूर्वपक्षास्ते
जीवस्वरूपज्ञानात् पूर्वपक्षा एव न भवन्तीति तथेत्यर्थः । श्रुत्यन्तरेणापि कर्मशेषत्वं परिहरन्ति
न कर्मणेत्यादि । श्रुतिस्तु बृहन्नारायणे 'अणोरणीया'नित्यनुवाकस्था । अत्रानुवाकारम्भमन्त्रे
रश्मिः।
पूर्णमिति । वीर्यं शुक्रमेकादशबलं ज्योतिःशास्त्रप्रसिद्धं फलमिति शुक्रब्रह्मवादिनः । यज्ञासंभवा-
दिति तदसंभवादिति भाष्यस्यार्थः । तथा फलेति । यदि फलज्ञानाभावे यागप्रवृत्तिर्न स्यात्,
'इज्यत्वेन ज्ञानस्ये'त्याद्युक्तरीत्या फलोत्पत्तिर्न स्यात् । प्रवृत्तिः ज्ञानसाध्या, प्रवृत्तित्वात् घटप्रवृत्तिव-
दित्यनुमानम् । तथा 'फलज्ञाने यागप्रवृत्तिः इज्यत्वेन ज्ञानस्ये'त्याद्युक्तरीत्या फलोत्पत्तेः । पटप्रवृत्ति-
वदित्यनुमानम् । एवं तथा फलोत्पत्त्यापादनस्येत्यर्थः । विश्वसृगिति । तच्छेषत्वेति । कर्मशे-
षत्वम् । निरस्तत्वादिति । ननु श्रीभागवतद्वादशस्कन्धीयप्रमाणनिरूपणाध्यायस्थत्वान्न निरासः
साधीयानिति वाच्यम् । परमतत्वेन तस्य शुक्रेणगतिरूपत्वात् । 'तत्त्वं च यथा यथाश्रुतं यथामति तदहं
तेऽभिधास्यामी'ति शुकवाक्ये कथनात् । अत एव 'अंशो नानाव्यपदेशा'दिति व्याससूत्रमुक्तम् ।
करणत्वेन तद्विषयवाक्येन सहितं पुराणमतबाधकं भवतीति । अतः पूर्वपक्षाः पूर्वपक्षाः, न तु
सिद्धान्ताः अस्मन्मते, श्रौतजीवस्वरूपज्ञानादिति पूर्वपक्षा एव न भवन्तीति वाक्यशेषः । पूर्वपक्षाः
पूर्वपक्षा इति प्रयोगस्तु न भवति, उद्देश्यतावच्छेदकविधेययोरैक्यात् । अतो न भवन्तीति वाक्यशेषः ।
पूर्वपक्षा निरस्ता न पूर्वपक्षा इति । एवमप्यपदार्थोपदार्य इत्युद्देश्यतावच्छेदकविधेययोरैक्यमिति चेत् ।
भाष्यप्रामाण्यादस्तु प्रयोगः । तथेति । इत्यलमुक्त्येत्यर्थः । न कर्मणेत्यादीति । त्यागेन तत्प्रा-
प्तिरिति । अत्र नञः प्रयोगाभावादिति । कर्मादीनामिति । त्यागविषयाणाम् । उक्तसाधनेनेति ।
५६ ब्र० सू० २०
2041