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

khalu idam Brahma" is the śruti which says that everything is
the form of Brahman; by its own desire, Brahman attains the
form of the world without undergoing any material change;
and, again, by its own desire, takes all within itself. This
Evolution and Involution only are called the utpatti and vināśa
by the world. In reality – "na-asato vidyate bhāvo; na-abhāvo
vidyate sataḥ" (Gītā); by this sentence it is said – asataḥ bhāvaḥ
nāsti – there is no existence for that which does not exist; that
which exists does not cease to exist. In the school of thought
which accepts Brahman, it is experienced in everything and
hence, there is no question of its absence anywhere. Well, in
that case, there should be no experience as a thing of the past
and of the future; in that case, all the worldly dealings such as
anterior non-existence, posterior non-existence, the absence
of one object in the other, and the complete absence of a non-
existing thing etc., are being negated; no; in all these cases, the
desire of Bhagavān is the ultimate controller.
In that case, the statement "at that point of time when it is
called dissolution, it is the intention of Bhagavān that there
should be no experience of any object" – i.e. under which
point of time all objects are experienced, that is called the time
of created world; i.e. everywhere, the inimitable desire of
Bhagavān is the controller and thus, there is no occasion for
any defect in the system. (Vidvan-maṇḍana).
Thus it is that the Unqualified, un-changing, eternally
powerful Brahman, by its desire, sports in the form of Akṣara,
jīva and jagat by this evolution and involution. Therefore, the
absenses as anterior etc., are all involuted in this. Everything
being of the form of Brahman, there is no absolute absence of
anything in siddhānta. "Being so, at this point of time, and at
this place, this creation be so" – in this manner the desire takes
the form of evolution; likewise, "there be no such thing – desire
of this nature is involution." (Vidvan-maṇḍana). That is why it
is said – being eligible to be experienced is called evolution; the
absence of that is called involution. These two states are defined
xix

by the existence of objects; and it is not possible for false
appearances to be such limiting factors; because, they are
abstract concepts and need a substratum to appear upon
(Vidvan-maṇḍana). Therefore, the creation and dissolution of
the world are due to this evolution and involution; the word
creation means evolution; the word dissolution means
involution. “Ātmataḥ āvirbhāva-tirobhāvau” is the Chāndogya
śruti; these evolutions and involutions are not to be construed
as ephemeral.
Brahman the substratum of contradicting features:
If it is accepted that Brahman is the substratum of all the
attributes, thus acceding that contradictory attributes also do
inhere there, one and the same object, at a particular point of
time and at a particular point of space, cannot appear as two
different objects; therefore, the Brahman has to be accepted as
devoid of attributes, names and forms. That it is appearing as
possessing qualities and with forms due to the effect of māyā;
this is not so. Brahman is known only through the śruti; mere
reasoning is not useful in this; and the śruti states – “yato vāco
nivartante aprāpya manasā saha” – that Brahman does not possess
qualities; again, in that very context, it states – “‘ānandam
brahmaṇo vidvān; na bibheti kutahcana” the existence of bliss in
Brahman. That is why, in the Vyāsa sūtra – “darśanācca” – it is
stated that all the opposite qualities are seen in Brahman;
therefore, Brahman is the substratum of all dissimilar qualities
is stated in śruti, smṛti and pratyakṣa..
“Prakṛtaitāvatvam hi pratiṣedhati; bravīti ca tato bhūyaḥ” (3/
2/22) – by this sūtra, in reality and also as per śāstras, the
contradiction is removed; and by reasoning also, the
contradiction is removed. What is called “that much” in
Brahman? It means the qualities born of prakṛti that are denied;
thereafter, it talks of the existence of aprākṛta qualities. Thus,
contradictory qualities also inhere in Brahman, but they are
not of the prakṛti and not of this world. These qualities are of its
xx

very nature, and not due to māyā; “ubhaya vyapadeśāt; ahi-
kuṇḍalavat” (3/2/27); “prakāśa-āśrayavad vā; tejastvāt” (3/2/
28) – by these sūtras, it is to be accepted that Brahman is the
substratum of opposing qualities. Opposing qualities inhere in
Brahman is declared in śruti – “aṇoraṇīyān mahato mahīyān;”
“samo nāgena; samo maśakena;” “na tat samaśca; abhyadhikam
tu dṛśyate;” by many such śāstra sentences, in Brahman whose
nature is inexplicable, all opposing qualities do appear by its
very nature. At one and the same time, Brahman can be seen
in two different forms. Likewise, Brahman can appear at several
places simultaneously; as was seen by Nārada - the sixteen
thousand mahiṣīs in the antaḥpura. Therefore, by the validity
as experienced by Nārada, Brahman is the substratum of all
opposing qualities; it is capable of doing, un-doing and doing
variously. Even in this world, we see in one person, the opposing
qualities like sympathy in the case of one and the killing instinct
in the case of another; this we see at one and the same time in
one and the same person; this being so, what to talk of the
other-worldly things and happenings. Here Śrī
Purusottamacaraṇa:
“Therefore, if we analyse on the strength of verbal testimony,
then we come to the conclusion that Brahman is the sub-
stratum of all the opposing qualities and features. If analysed
according to the reasonings shown in the śrutis, then it is
devoid of all worldly qualities and is full with all un-worldly
qualities etc. If analysed on the strength of the meanings, it is
the conglomerate of all opposing qualities. To teach this, it
was analysed in these three methods.” Therefore, if Brahman is
the abode of opposing qualities, it is not a blemish but adds to
its merit. In this same manner, the qualities of being partial
between individuals and not showing pity in the case of
suffering people etc., are not to be construed as defects in
Brahman because they are created by Brahman itself. Hence,
says the Āchārya – “ātma-sṛṣṭeḥ na vaiṣamyam nairghṛṇyam
cāpi vidyate.”
xxi

Bhagaval-līlā:
In the discussion, “Is the Bhagaval-līlā the product of māyā
or not”, this being only in Bhagavān, being based in Brahman
which is of the nature of Sat-cit-ānanda, and being not different
from its nature, it is not the effect of māyā. This Bhagaval-līlā
does not proceed with a view to achieving any specific purpose;
“na prayojanavatvāt” – this sūtra illustrates this. But, it is like the
sporting activities of the world; see sūtra “lokavat-tu-līlā
kaivalyam”; it is merely a sport; self-experience is mokṣa. It is
told in the Bhāṣya that its (līlā’s) mere mention will give mokṣa.
Līlā is in the nature of Brahman itself, has been produced by
Bhagavān and it is un-worldly; therefore, it cannot be
contended, that it is not the product of māyā. The answer to
this objection is: “The definition of this sport in Subodhinī –
“instigated by happiness, being performed without tiring
efforts, the act is called sport”; alternatively, without
tiresomeness, and with pleasure, the act performed is līlā.”
Now, another objection: This līlā is seen here in this world’s
mountains and forests, and being in the midst of prapañca, it is
fleeting or ephemeral; no; prapañca itself is the creation of
Bhagavān as told by Āchārya; līlā being part of this prapañca
which is the creation of Bhagavān –
“jayati jananivāso devakī janmavādo
yaduvarapariṣat-svair-dorbhirasyan-adharmam |
sthira-cara-vṛjinaghnaḥ susmita-śrīmukhena
vrajapura-vanitānām vardhayan kāmadevam ||”
(Bhāgavata 10/10/48)
As per this statement of Śrī Bhāgavata the fourth prasthāna;
In this śloka, the present tense used in the word “jayati” denotes
the līlās performed in Vraja in the past, and the ‘śatṛ’ suffix in
the word “vardhayan” denotes that at that time of the story
and at that instant, there existed all the unseen sports.
Therefore, as can be seen in the context of naming the child,
Garga’s statement in the Bhāgavata – “bhagaval-līlānām
xxii

trikālātītatvam, nitya-vartamānatvam-pravartamānatvañca
jñāpyate” i.e. the sports of Bhagavān are beyond the three tenses,
past, present and future – it is ever in the present – and will also
be in future – is denoted.
“bahūni santi nāmāni rūpāṇi ca sutasya te |
guṇa-karmānurūpāṇi tānyaham Veda no janāḥ ||”
(Bhāga. 10/8/15)
Here, the word “santi” is used; it is evident from this that the
līlā is eternally present.
No; we see in the world that a cook or a teacher is so called
even when he is not engaged in that specific act; here too, it is
to be so interpreted and not otherwise. The answer is – “not
so”. The un-worldly sport is beyond this world’s ken of
knowledge, and even though the līlā spoken of here is connected
with this world, it should not be established by the example of
this world. In this world, even a timid person is praised as a
lion among men; whereas the above statement is not so. Here,
according to the statement of Garga, as the name denotes, the
qualities are to be construed; as per the acts, the form is to be
seen; i.e. one who rears the cows is cow-herd; one who gives
mukti is Mukunda; etc.
No; at the time of naming the child, the sports were yet to
take place; then, how was it possible to name the child
according to the non-existing sports? This doubt does not arise;
because the sports of Bhagavān are eternal and they are going
on eternally. In this manner, sports like Pūtanā-śakaṭa-
bhañjana-Kāliya-damana etc. were already known, but were
not performed at that instant by the desire of Bhagavān.
Therefore, the sports of Bhagavān are eternal and are not limited
by time and space; they are there at all places, at one place, in
all forms and in various forms by the mere desire of Bhagavān
and therefore, they are not the product of māyā at any time.
Let the un-worldly sports of Bhagavān be not the product of
māyā; but, as in the world, on the question “are the sports the
products of māyā or not”, the answer is an emphatic ‘no’. As
xxiii

shown in the sūtra “Tat-tvabhāve sandhyavad-upapatteḥ”
(Br.Su.4/4/13), to delude the non-divine people, Bhagavān
shows Himself as ordinary human beings, but in truth, He is
not so. For those whose thoughts are clouded and are non-
divine, as described in the Bhagavadgītā (16/18-20) – “mama-
ātma-para-deheṣu pradviṣanto-abhyasūyakāḥ”... “tato yānti-
adhamāṁ gatim” – these people are of non-divine nature and
are not fit for emancipation.
In this manner, showing the reasons for finding fault in the
sports of Bhagavān, in the following sūtra the reasons are shown
for seeing the praise-worthiness of the sports of Bhagavān –
“bhāve jāgradvat” (Br.Su.4/4/14). As per this sūtra, the meaning
of the word “līlā” and in the act of līlā itself, which appear as of
this world, what the devotees see is non-worldly; as in the case
of a person who gets rid of his clouded vision, and gets the
correct vision. In this manner, Bhagavān, by his own desire,
removes the effect of māyā from the minds of his devotees, and
to make them enjoy the different experiences of his different
sports, enacts them as such.
In certain cases, He performs false sports also as in the battle
of Saubha. Therefore, to delude the un-godly people, He
performs sports as in the world. Here the Bhāṣya – “ata eva
līlāyaḥ anekarūpatvāt, brahmaṇaśca śrutau Saindhava dṛṣṭānte,
naikarasatva-nirūpaṇāt, suddha-brahma-dharmatvaṁ na
sambhavatīti śaṅkā-nirāsāya kaivalyam ityuktam” (“lokavat-tu-
līlā-kaivalyam”).
“sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaśca” in these śrutis, the pure state,
devoid of any other attribute, that is stated is also of the nature
of sports. The pure param-brahman is of sportive nature only,
and not, at any time, devoid of it is intended here. From this it
can be concluded that the sports are in the nature of Brahman,
and thus, they are eternal. (Br.Su.4/4/14 Bhāṣya).
The attribute of smell occurs in earth only and not in water
i.e. its appearance at one place and non-appearance at another
xxiv

place. Likewise, the experience of Bhagaval-līlā is seen in the
devotees and not in the haters of God. Even now, similar
experience of Bhagaval-līlā of those times by the devotees are
being heard, by the desire and condescendence of God. Thus,
Bhagavān is always combined with his sports at all times and
all places. The Lord Govardhanadhara for protecting his
devotees, just to fulfil the desires of His devotees, by this desire
and sympathy, appears and disappears.
Therefore, this is the conclusion in the system that Bhagavān's
sports are not product of māyā at any time.
“prabhoreva phalatvaṁ nirdoṣatvañ-ca varṇyate ।
līlā-nityavataḥ pūrṇa-guṇatvam ca tato-akhilam ॥”
(Āchārya kārikā)
Bhakti Nirūpaṇam
Definition of Bhakti has been given by Āchāryacaraṇa in
his Nibandha as –
“Māhātmya-jñānapūrvastu sudṛḍhaḥ sarvato-adhikaḥ ।
Sneho bhaktiriti proktaḥ tayā muktir nacānyathā ॥”
(Śā.pra.kā.45)
Bhakti-svarūpa has been explained by Āchārya by this kārikā.
Sneho bhaktiḥ. When one understands that Bhagavān is the
soul, sneha – affection – takes place. “Gauṇascenna ātmaśabdāt
(Br.Su.1/1/5) – as per this sūtra the word ‘gauṇa’ should not
be interpreted as attached with guṇa, ātma-śabdāt – Here the
Bhāṣya says – ātma śabdaḥ punaḥ sarveṣu vedānteṣu nirguṇa-
parabrahma-vācakatvenaiva siddhaḥ. Tasyaiva Jagat-kartṛtvam
śrutirāha.” This sentence means, nirguṇa-sākāra-parabrahman
only is the Creator of this world; He only is the indwelling soul;
He only is Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa. “Kṛṣiḥ means ‘Bhū’; ‘ṇaḥ’ means
riddance. The identity of these two denotes param-Brahma
Kṛṣṇaḥ”; this is how the Gopālatāpaniyopaniṣad describes. Śrī
Kṛṣṇa, the one brought up in the laps of Yaśodā, is Param-
Brahma – this is made clear in all the śruti, smṛti śāstras; therefore,
xxv

the word 'bhakti' means sneha in Śrī Kṛṣṇa; this is the primary
meaning; its use in other places is redundant.
Sat-cit-ānandam Brahma sports in the world in three ways;
here, the jagat is 'ādhibhautikam'; Akṣara-Brahman is
ādhyātmikam; Ādhi-daivikam param Brahma, "puruṣaśca-adhi-
daivatam" smṛti says. Likewise, there are three ways for the
sports of Bhagavān – ādhi-bhautika mārga, i.e. karma; ādhyātmika
mārga, i.e. jñānam; ādhi-daiviko mārgaḥ, i.e. bhaktiḥ. Here, the
first one, ādhi-bhautikaḥ – the karma mārga is restricted to world;
the second, jñāna mārga ends in Akṣara; third, the bhakti mārga
ends in Puruṣottama para-Brahman. The jñānis think that the
ultimate end is Akṣara Brahman; but, bhaktas consider this
Akṣara Brahman as the dhāma – residence – of Para-Brahma,
Pūrṇa Puruṣottama. The evidence for this is –
“avyakto'Akṣara ityuktaḥ tamāhuḥ paramāṁ gatim |
yaṁ prāpya na nivartante tad-dhāma paramam mama ||
(Gītā 8/21)
Likewise –
“yasmāt kṣaram-atīto'ham akṣarādapi cottamaḥ |
ato'smi loke vede ca prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ ||”
(Gītā 15/18)
by these testimonies, the meaning of the Vedas and the śāstras
is known as bhakti. Well, how do you come to the conclusion
that the meaning of the Vedas and other śāstras is bhakti? The
answer is - “yatra nānyat paśyati; nānyat śruṇoti; nānyat vijānāti;
sa bhūmā; sa vā eṣa evam paśyan evam manvānaḥ evam vijānan,
ātma-ratiḥ; ātma-krīḍaḥ; ātma-mithunaḥ; ātmānandaḥ; sa svarāḍ
bhavati;” “parambrahmaitad yo dhyāyati, rasati, bhajati, so amṛto
bhavati;” “nāham vedair, na tapasā, na dānena, na cejyayā śakya
evam vidho draṣṭum dṛṣṭavānasi māṁ yathā;” “bhaktyā tvananyayā
śakyaḥ;” “aham bhakta-parādhīnaḥ;” “bhaktyā tutoṣa Bhagavān
gajayūthapāya” – by these śruti, smṛti testimonials, only bhakti
has been elucidated. By these the sarvātma-bhāva nature of
bhakti only is conveyed.
xxvi

In Chāndogya, the Sanatkumāra-Nārada dialogue of
Bhūmavidyā, by the words "yatra nānyat paśyati" etc. talks of
the absence of any other element; this very vidyā again talks of
that state of separation from Bhagavān wherein, by the ultimate
longing, forgetting the prapañca, at all places, only the Bhagavat
svarūpa is experienced, by these words – "sa eva adhastāt, sa eva
upariṣṭād, sa paścāt" etc. 'Thereafter, the experiences in the state
of separation from Bhagavān are described as not the necessary
concomitants, and to remind this, the "ahaṅkāra ādeśa" –
"ahameva adhastāt, ahameva upariṣṭād" etc. are given; then comes
the ātmādeśa – "ātmaiva adhastāt, ātmopariṣṭād" etc. Likewise,
still further, by the words "ātma-ratiḥ; ātma-krīḍaḥ; ātma-
mithunaḥ" etc. it extols the Bhagavān as of the nature of "rasa".
Here, the word "ātma" is taken to mean "pūrṇa puruṣottama"
in the siddhānta and not the Akṣara or jīva. This is evident from
the sūtra "gauṇaścen-na-ātmaśabdāt"; by this sūtra, that thing
which is the ultimate existence, is what is told mainly in all the
Vedānta. By this, the sarvātma-bhāva nature of bhakti only is
conveyed and this is the main purport.
This bhakti is achieved only through the grace of God; it is so
told in the śruti – "na-ayam ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ; na
medhayā; na bahunā śrutena; yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ;
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūm svām" (Kaṭho. 1/2/23). Here, the
word ātma means Puruṣottama; "pravacanena means 'sasvara
vedādhyayanena'. By this it is clear that the 'puṣṭi-bhakti' can be
attained only by the desire of Bhagavān. The word "sva" means
self, and when desired as one's own self, He gives the 'puṣṭi-
bhakti' of the nature of 'sarvātma-bhāva'. Here the Bhāṣya – "for
all individual souls, Bhagavān, naturally is the master; but,
then, whom He desires as His own, him He protects even as a
husband would his wife; bhakta also protects Him due to the
affection generated by the varaṇa; He, like the Bhakta, protects
him in Himself. (Aṇu Bhāṣya 4/4/15).
This statement of the Bhāṣya indicates that 'sneha' affection
xxvii

is the important and chief element of bhakti; that is why Vyāsa
has shown the example of 'pradīpa' – lamp (Dīpaka) – instead of
'ayo-golaka' – heated iron ball – in his sūtra “pradīpavad-āveśaḥ;
tathā hi darśayati”. This 'sneha' has 'śṛṅgāra' as its chief element
as shown by the damsels of Vraja whose 'sthāyi-bhāva' was
nothing but 'rati' and hence, bhakti-rasa also means the same
'śṛṅgāra'. This experience is non-worldly and is of the nature
of 'saṁyoga' – togetherness – and 'viprayoga' – separation. This
alaukika śṛṅgāra – non-worldly love, though similar to the
worldly love, is not the same; because, it is known through the
non-worldly means of knowledge, and not known through
the worldly means of knowledge.
In fact, in this bhakti, the mere doubt of its being this worldly
is meaningless. Ṛṣis like Vātsyāyana and others wrote their
treatises just to elucidate this bhagavat-bhāva experience. Ṛṣis
intentions are not to convey the worldly experiences at any
time. That is why, it is said – “tadetat brahmacaryeṇa parameṇa
samādhinā vihito lokayātrārthaṁ na rāgārtho'asya samvidhiḥ;
rakṣan dharmārthakāmānstrīn sampaśyam-lokavartinām; asya
śāstrasya tatvajño bhavatyeva jitendriyaḥ”. If the intention of
those writers were to be of this world, then they would not
have said the end-result as ' jitendriya-bhavana' – becoming
one who has won over his senses. This meaning has been
elaborately shown by the Āchārya in his Bhāṣya on
“liṅgabhūyastvādhikaraṇa” and in “kratuvaj-
jyāyastvādhikaraṇa”. Likewise by Śrī Puruṣottamacaraṇa in
his Prakāśa and by Śrī Gopeśacaraṇa in his Raśmi.
The nature of this bhakti is 'śṛṅgāra' and it is of the nature of
togetherness and separation; separation generates a suffering
of longing; how then can it be of the nature of pleasure and
that too, immeasurably? The answer is the śruti “yo vai bhūma
tat sukham”; therefore, it is of the nature of only pleasure. In
Vedānta, at all places, mukti has been described as of the nature
of enjoyment of pleasure. In the Puṣṭi mārga also, the nature of
Bhagavān being of ānanda, His prāpti – attainment – is the
xxviii

attainment of paramānanda – inestimable pleasure and not the
attainment of suffering. On this point, the author of Raśmi,
Yogi Gopeśwara enjoins – “asyaiva ca-upapatteḥ ūṣmā” – in the
Bhāṣya of this sūtra, ‘tathā hi; asya ānandātmaka-rasa-rūpasya
bhagavataḥ eva ayam dharmaḥ; ūṣmā – viraha-tāpaḥ; though
the all-pervading Bhagavān is present at all places, because he
disappears by His māyā, separation and longing of His company
is common for all; but, then, it is not felt by all, but only by
those in whose hearts the experience of blissful nature of
Bhagavān takes place, and only in his heart the suffering, born
out of non-attainment of Him is experienced; this is in tune
with the syllogism – “other things being there, it will be there;
they being not there, it will not be there.” Therefore, only that
object which is of the nature of pleasure can be such; the
suffering also here will be of the nature of pleasure.”
From the above it is clear that the suffering described here is
not born out of karma; if it were to be born out of karma, then its
riddance called mokṣa, of the nature of pleasure, will also be
shattered. That is why it is said in the śruti – “na paśyo mṛtyum
paśyati na rogam no’ta duḥkhatām” – here the nature of this
bhakti is described as not of the nature of suffering; but is the
cause of suffering though; But, being the means to attain the
real Puruṣottama – ānanda-prāpti, it is of the nature of pleasure.
If not so, in the state of separation, the śruti would not have
said as – ‘citte sphurāyamāṇam ānandatvam’; “ko hi-evānyāt kaḥ
prāṇyāt” – this śruti means – “in the state of separation, the
Bhagavad-rūpa shining in the heart is the cause for the
continuity of life”. Likewise, in the Bhāgavata also –
“tāḥ manmanaskā mat-prāṇā madarthe tyakta-daihikāḥ
māmeva dayitam preṣṭhamātmānam manasā gatāḥ |
ye tyakta-loka-dharmāśca madarthe tān bibharmyaham |
(Bhāga. 10/46/4)
“Thus, that which is given by Bhagavān, who is one’s most-
dear, that which has some connection with Bhagavān and
xxix

which is attained by the devotees, all that will be of the nature
of pleasure; therefore, for the naive that you are, the un-earthly
nature of pleasure of Bhagavān will be the cause of suffering
even as the nail-marks of the lover on the bulging breasts of
his love, comparable to the pricking of thorns! Let us suffice it
at this.”
Thus, by the śruti “yo vai bhūma tat sukham; na-alpe
sukhamasti” the pleasure that is described is of Brahman only
since that is of that nature, and all that is of the nature of
pleasure, end by connoting Brahman. In fact, Brahman only is
the desired object of jīva. This is what is told in Śrī Bhāgavta:
“ahamātmā ātmanāṃ dhātaḥ preṣṭhaḥ san preyasāmapi ।
ato mayi ratiṃ kuryād dehādir yat-kṛte priya ॥”
Here, this should be understood: In Siddhānta, Para-Brahman
is of the nature of pleasure ‘rasa’; is the substratum of all
opposing qualities; and with form; thus the śruti “ātmaiva
pūrvamāsīt puruṣa-vidhaḥ”. The end-result to be attained is
Brahmānanda. In the śruti “param-brahmaitad yo dhyāyati rasati
bhajati so'amṛto bhavati” the connection of each word with
Brahman is to be understood.
This bhakti is of the nature of end-result; its definition is – “para-
Brahma śrī kṛṣṇa-snehatvam”. Here, by the varaṇa śruti “yameva
eṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ” the varaṇa is of two varieties viz. maryādā
and Puṣṭi. In the case of maryādā bhakti, the means prescribed
in the śāstras are many and that also, is of bodily, mental and
verbal nature. Whereas, in the Puṣṭi mārga, varaṇam is the
only means. In this mārga, only by the grace of God is the
destruction of all the sins. This is so said –
“svapāda-mūlaṃ bhajataḥ priyasya
tyaktānya-bhāvasya hariḥ pareśaḥ
vikarma yaccotpatitaṃ kathañcit
dhunoti sarvaṃ hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ” ॥
(Bhāga. 11/5/42)
xxx

“praviṣṭaḥ karṇa-randhreṇa svānāṁ bhāva-saroruham
dhunoti samalam kṛṣṇaḥ padmapatramivāñjasā”॥
In this manner, only by varaṇa (paramātma's desire) – puṣṭi-
bhakti is attained by the puṣṭi-bhakta; whereas bhaktas attain
through bhakti-mārga – go near to Bhagavān; there, if Bhagavān
appears, gets rasānanda; i.e. through all the senses, relation is
established with bhagavat-svarūpa. This is told in Bhāgavata –
“akṣanvatāṁ phalamidam na param vidāmaḥ”; all kinds of such
mental longings are fulfilled by the grace of Bhagavān;
“brahmaiva san Brahma apyeti”; “so'śnute sarvān Kāmān saha
brahmaṇā” these śrutis are the evidence. This experience of
rasa is the highest. By the statement of the Āchārya
“brahmānandāt samuddhṛtya bhajanānandayojane,” the akṣara-
brahma-ānanda is counted-pleasure and the bhajanananda is
uncounted pleasure. Evaluating between these two, jñāna and
bhakti, Bhakti is superior.

1. In Bhakti, drinking of the rasa of kṛpānanda is the result;
   in jñāna, it is merely the absence of suffering.
2. In Bhakti, experience of pleasure in full is the result; in
   jñāna, dissolving one's self and that too completely,
   without differentiation – is the result.
3. In Bhakti, the existence of duality made so by Bhagavān
   and experience of its pleasure is the result; in jñāna, since
   there is no differentiation, experience of pleasure does
   not arise.
4. In Bhakti, from the very beginning, there is limitless
   pleasure; in Jñāna, there is suffering in the beginning,
   and at the end, attainment of limited ānanda.
5. In Bhakti, it is the attainment of Pūrṇa Puruṣottama; in
   jñāna, it is the attainment of Akṣara.
   In this manner, while comparing jñāna and bhakti, bhakti
   excels.
   xxxi

"ātmārāmāśca munayaḥ nirgranthā apyarukrame ।
kurvantyahautikīm bhaktimitthambhūtaguṇo hariḥ ॥"
(Bhā.1/7/10)
"The great contemplators and renunciates undertake
unearthly bhakti in respect of That of big-strides, just for the
sake of self-pleasure, because Hari is of those qualities not
experienced anywhere else.
Therefore, even after getting the brahma-bhāva, one can
practise parā bhaktiḥ. This is the unfathomable excellence of
Bhagavān, Pūrṇa-Puruṣottama Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the superiority of
bhakti. That is why learned people, capable of understanding
the rasa and of emotional nature, offering themselves through
bhakti, unto Bhagavān Śrī Gopījana-vallabha, become immersed
in the experience of pleasure. Therefore, by the sentence "sarva-
dharmān parityajya" only Bhagavān is to be accepted as the
resort. Only by His grace, Bhagavān makes happen all that is
wanted by the devotees. That is why the definition of Puṣṭi is
told in Śrī Bhāgavata as – "poṣaṇaṁ tadanugrahaḥ". In Puṣṭi-
mārga, it is only the Bhagavad-anugraha, the controller.
Bhakti is of two varieties as Maryādā and Puṣṭi. Maryādā-
bhakti means bhakti in Bhagavat-caraṇāravinda. Puṣṭi-bhakti
means bhakti in Bhagavat-mukhāravinda. Maryādā-bhakti is not
independent. Puṣṭi-bhakti is independent. The end-result in
Maryādā-bhakti is sāyujyam i.e. attaining similarity with
Bhagavān in qualities. In Puṣṭi, it is becoming Bhagavān Himself.
Thus, in whose case the grace of Bhagavān descends, he comes
into the Puṣṭi; and that grace is inferred by the craving (ruci)
etc., shown by the devotee in that mārga.
That craving means Bhakti itself. The result of pure Puṣṭi-
bhakti means entering into the Nitya-līla and attainment of
Puruṣottama. All this has been elaborately explained by the
Āchārya in Śrīmad Aṇu-Bhāṣya; it has been vividly explained
in his Prakāśa by Śrī Puruṣottamacaraṇa and by Śrī
Gopeśwaracaraṇa in his Prakāśa-Raśmi still more elaborately
xxxii

delineated.. One has to understand all this from there.
Now, describing the root of Brahman and its nature we
conclude here –
“kṛṣir bhū-vācakaḥ sabdo; ṇaśca nirvṛtti vācakaḥ;
tayoraikyam param Brahma kṛṣṇa ityabhidhīyate ॥
Om Tat Sat Param Brahma Kṛṣṇātmako Nityānandaika-
svarūpaḥ ॥ is the śruti.
The letter “kṛ” denotes earth; the letter “ṇaḥ” means
“redemption”; when these two letters become one Word, it
denotes the param-Brahma called Kṛṣṇa. This is confirmed by
the śruti sentence quoted. Therefore,
Paripūrṇatamaḥ kṛṣṇo vaikuṇṭho gokulaḥ svayam ।
Caturbhujaśca vaikuṇṭhe gokule dvibhujaḥ svayam ।
(Bra.vaivartapu.)
Kṛṣṇa is the most full-potential god; Gokula is Vaikuṇṭha
itself; He only is with four hands in Vaikuṇṭha, and with two
hands in Gokula. In this manner, in respect of all the śāstras,
the opinion of Śrī Vallabhācārya was explained in short.
Therefore, paramānandapūrṇa-Puruṣottama-Parabrahma is
Śrī Kṛṣṇa only. What is known from all the Nigamas, Āgamas
and others is the para-brahma-svarūpa Śrī Kṛṣṇa and He alone
is to be realized and that is the ultimate puruṣārtha and this is
the Śuddhādvaita-Brahma-vāda. This attainment is not possible
without bhakti, vide the śruti – “nāyamātmā balahīnena labhyaḥ.”
Here, the word “bala” means bhakti. Therefore, in the pure
puṣṭi-bhakti, love is the deciding factor. Bhakti, i.e. love without
any conditioning factor, is the Sarvātma-bhāva. Only this is the
chief means for the attainment of Pūrṇa-Puruṣottama. In whom
the grace of god descends, only he becomes fit for this puṣṭi-
mārga. Therefore, to establish this puṣṭi-mārga, the prameya,
un-opposed to the pramāṇa, was shown by the Āchārya and
hence, as delineated by the Āchārya, the Puṣṭi path is to be
followed.
xxxiii

“jānīta paramam tatvam yaśodotsanga-lālitam |
tadanyaditi ye prāhūrāsurāñstān aho budhāḥ ||”
(Śrī Prabhucaraṇāḥ Bhāṣya)
Śrīmad Āchāryacaraṇānām Veda-śraddhā:
In this Bhāṣya, the glory of this Puṣṭi-bhakti has been
elaborately described and thus, Āchārya has shown his extra-
ordinary belief in respect of the Vedas. Śrī Vallabhācārya does
not accept variation even in a single letter of the Vedas. “uttaram
pūrva-sandeha-vārakam parikīrtitam” – as per this rule of
interpretation, “pūrva-pūrva-prasthāna-sandeha-vārakatvam
uttarottara-prasthānasya” – the earlier basic texts forming the
basis for a siddhānta, if ambiguous, should be got clarified by
the statements in the later texts – Āchārya has upheld this
principle.
For example, the Veda says – “apāṇi-pādo javano gṛhītā”;
here a doubt arises as to, whether Brahman is devoid of this
earthly hands and feet; or, it denies the existence of hands and
feet in general? This doubt is cleared by the sentence of the
Gītā – “sarvataḥ pāṇi-pādāmātam” i.e. Brahman is having hands
and feet everywhere. Similarly, the Gītā says – “nityaḥ
sarvagataḥ sthāṇuḥ”; “mamaivāṁśo jīvaloke” etc. Here, the doubts
that arise are cleared by the Brahmasūtras – “utkrānti-
gatyāgatibhiḥ”; “aṁśo nānā-vyapadeśāt” etc. Similarly, in the
sūtra – “janmādyasya yataḥ” – the doubt arises that the jagat-
kāraṇatvam told of the Brahman is the material cause or the
efficient cause. The conclusion is derived by the sentence of Śrī
Bhāgavata – “anvaya-vyatirekābhyāṁ yaḥ syāt sarvatra sarvadā”.
It is how the homogeneity of all the four prasthānas is to be
achieved. Here, the Āchārya has accepted validity of the entire
Veda consisting of two kāṇḍas, and not the Upaniṣad only as
told by others - ‘vedānto nāma upaniṣad pramāṇam’; says Āchārya
– “vedasya Akṣara-mātrasya anyathā-kalpane’pi doṣaḥ syāt” –
imagining even a letter of the Veda differently will amount to
xxxiv

defective reasoning.
Therefore -
“vedoktād-aṇumātre’pi viparītam tu yad bhaved |
Tādṛśaṁ vā svatantrañca ubhayaṁ mūlato mṛṣā ||”
(A.Bha.Ka.)
Likewise -
“yajñarūpo hariḥ pūrvakāṇḍe Brahma-tanuḥ pare |
Avatārī hariḥ kṛṣṇaḥ Śrī Bhāgavata īryate ||”
(Sa.pra. 11)
“agnihotram tathā darśa-pūrṇamāsaḥ paśus-tathā |
cāturmāsyāni somaśca kramāt pañcavidho hariḥ ||”
(Tatva. 2/2)
“asandigdho'pi vedārthaḥ sthūṇā-khananavan-matam |
mīmāṁsānirṇayaḥ prājñe durbuddhestu tato dvayam ||
Jaiminiḥ karma-tattvajño nirṇayam pūrva uktavān |
Vyāsaḥ svayam hi sarvajñaḥ uttare nirṇayam jagau ||”
(Tatva.2/29/30)
In respect of Purāṇa, Āchārya's faith –
“Purāṇam vedavat pūrvasiddham sarvopayogi tat”
(Tatva.2/48).
In respect of Mahābhārata –
“sarvanirdhāraṇārthāya vyāso bhāratamuktavān”
(Tatva.2/57);
On the subject Jyotiṣa –
“darśādikālanirddhāro jyotiḥ śāstraphalam smṛtam”
(Tatva.2/75)
On Vyākaraṇa –
“vyākṛtiḥ Pāṇinīyam hi Prātiśākhyam tu śabdag
(Tatva.2/77);
On Āyurveda etc. –
“Ārogye dharmasiddhiḥ syād rakṣā ca dhanuṣo bhavet |
Udvegahānir-gāndharve sthāpatyam ca srugādiṣu ||
xxxv

Kāvyādīnām asatyatvāt nopayogaḥ kathañcana ॥
Dharme-kartuḥ kvacid kīrttir-naipuṇyam pāṭhataḥ kvacit ॥"
(Tatva. 2/79-80)
On Rāmāyaṇa –
“ Rāmāyaṇamanantam hi purāṇamiva sanmatam ।
Vyāsaḥ pūrvamanekokto vālmīkiḥ sāmpratam kila ।
Samādhi-bhāṣayā prāha pramāṇam sarvathaiva tat ॥”
(Sar.pra. 81)
In this manner, in respect of all the śāstras, the opinion of Śrī
Vallabhācārya was clarified in short.
In respect of Saṁnyāsa:
Saṁnyāsa is not to be taken in the paths of karma and jñāna
due to the defects of Kali, to avoid regret later. But, in Bhakti
mārga, it should be taken. The sacrifice, just for the sake of
experiencing the separation of Bhagavān only, is praise-worthy.
All this Āchārya has elaborately explained in his work
Saṁnyāsa-nirṇaya. From this it is evident that Āchārya's
preference is in bhakti-mārga over the karma-jñāna mārgas.
In his Bhāṣya, Āchārya shows his keen interest in
repudiating the māyā-vāda. Even while repudiating the
Bauddha-mata, he shows his penchent for the repudiation of
māyā-vādi.
In Brahma-sūtra, the other Āchāryas have accepted the
Catuḥ-sūtrī consisting of the sūtras – (1) Athā'to Brahma-jijñāsa;
(2) Janmādyasya yataḥ; (3) Śāstra-yonitvāt; (4) Tat-tu-samanvayāt;
whereas, as per Śrī Vallabhācārya, ‘janmādyasya yataḥ; śāstra-
yonitvat’ appear as one sūtra. That is why, in Śuddhādvaita, it is
called as ‘tri-sutri’.
This Aṇu Bhāṣya was written by Śrīmad Vallabhācārya upto
sūtra 33 of second quarter of third chapter. From sūtra 34
onwards it was commented by Śrī Viṭṭhalanātha. Even in the
earlier part of the Bhāṣya, in ‘Ānandamayādhikaraṇa’ the second
xxxvi

varṇaka was written by Śrī Viṭṭhaleśa. In this matter, the
statement of author of Prakāśa on Bhāṣya Śrī Puruṣottama is
the authority. It is written: “Ita ārabhya prabhūṇāmiti (Śrī
Viṭṭhaleśānām) pratibhāti; “sthāna-viśeṣāt prakāśādivat” –
(Br.Su. 3/2/34) – in this sūtra-bhāṣya-prakāśa. Likewise, in
Ānandamayādhikaraṇa – “sāmpratam tu Prabhucaraṇaiḥ”.
Similarly, in the ending verse of the fourth chapter,
“Bhāṣya-puṣpāñjaliḥ śrīmadācārya-caraṇāmbuje |
niveditastena tuṣṭā bhavantu mayi te sadā ||”
` Here, in the Bhāṣya-prāmāṇya-prakāśa, Śrī Puruṣott-
amāḥ: “guṇopasaṁhārapādamārabhya sārddhādhyāyasya svayam
karaṇāt tad āchāryeṣu nivedayantaḥ samāptau maṅgalam
kartavyamiti śiṣṭācārañca śikṣayantaḥ āchāryāṇām prasādam
āśāsate”; from this, it is clear that after writing the remaining
part of the Bhāṣya, it was dedicated at the feet of Śrī
Vallabhācārya. But, here some learned persons think that the
entire Bhāṣya was written by Āchārya himself. In that case,
the meaning of ‘Śrī Āchārya-caraṇāmbujam’ should be taken to
mean as Vyāsācārya-caraṇāmbujam. See Āchārya's sentence
“vyāso'smākam guruḥ”. In this manner, at other places also
explanations are given.
Moreover, some people say – “there is another elaborate
Bhāṣya of the Āchārya; from that, some short passage is
available today; this Bhāṣya is the abridged version of that
Bhāṣya.” However, what Śrī Puruṣottamacaraṇa has said in
his Prakāśa is to be accepted as the only part available and
there should be no doubt about this. Whatever works of Śrī
Vallabhācārya are there, in those cases there are commentaries
on them by Śrī Puruṣottama. Where there is no commentary
of Puruṣottama, that work is of Śrī Vallabhācārya or not is
doubtful.
In this Bhāṣya, there are four chapters; they are - svarūpa;
matāntara-nirāsa; sādhana; description of phala – respectively.
In each chapter, there are four quarters; in the first chapter,
xxxvii

Vedānta vākyas describing the nature of Brahman are discussed.
Here, in the first quarter, sentences describing the effect
(creation); in the second quarter, sentences describing the
antaryāmī; in the third quarter, sentences describing the form
of upāsya (that which is to be meditated upon); and in the
fourth quarter, other disconnected sentences are discussed –
this is the short description of the first chapter.
In the second chapter, the view points of other systems are
repudiated; without repudiating the other systems, discussions
on the means and the end-result will not serve the purpose.
Here also, in the first quarter of the second chapter, the non-
opposing nature of śruti and smṛti is upheld. In the second
quarter, the systems of Nyāya, Māyāvāda etc., are refuted. In
the third quarter, the opposing nature of śruti sentences are
reconciled. In the fourth quarter, discussion on prāṇa etc. that
reside in the body of the jīvas is made. This is the essence of the
second chapter.
The third chapter deals with the means; here, in the first
quarter, the discussion revolves round the birth of the jīva
useful for brahma-jñāna. In the second quarter, the qualification
of jīva for mukti; here itself, removing the oppositions, Brahma-
svarūpa also is decided; in the third quarter, ‘guṇopasaṁhāra’ –
qualities described at different places differently are to be taken
together is called guṇopa-saṁhāra – is done; in the fourth quarter,
the subsidiary nature of rituals is discussed. This is the short
description of the third chapter.
The fourth chapter describes the phala – the end result –
objective. Here, in the first quarter, discussions of śravaṇa etc.
are carried on. In the second quarter, the dissolution of all the
senses is discussed. In the third quarter, the path of krama-
mukti etc. is discussed. In the fourth quarter, differentiating
between Puṣṭi and Maryādā, the phala and the eternal nature
of līlā etc. are discussed.
The division of Adhikaraṇas are –
xxxviii