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

orप्रतिनिधित्वम्? Wait! Look at line 6: त्रयीमूलत्वात्प्रतित्वमेकादशे- wait! Is there an anusvara or missing letters? Wait, "त्रयीमूलत्वात् तत्प्रतित्वम्"? Look at the word:त्रयीमूलत्वात्प्रतित्वमेकादशे: त्र यी मू ल त्वा त्प्र ति त्व मे का द शेYes, exactlyत्रयीमूलत्वात्प्रतित्वमेकादशे`!

Line 7: एवाग्र' इति कृतयुगे तन्मात्रवेदबोधनाच्च तदा सर्वं कार्यं प्रणवेनैवेति तस्य त्रयीप्रतिनिधित्वं वा ।

Line 8: एषा वागिति, सर्ववाग्बीजत्वात्सर्ववाग्रूपम् । तथाच छन्दोगा आम्रनन्ति, 'तद्यथा शङ्कुना सर्वाणि Wait, look at आम्रनन्ति: Is it आम्रनन्ति or आमनन्ति? Look at म: does it have a diagonal stroke for र? It has a slight diagonal stroke at the bottom left: आम्रनन्ति. Wait, the root is आम्ना (आम्नायते, आम्रनन्ति is a typo for आमनन्ति or आम्नन्ति!). In Chandogya:

विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसा श्रद्धयाऽनाशकेने'ति श्रुतेर्विविदिषायामेवोपक्षीपानि ज्ञानसम्पादनेपि नालं भवितुमर्हन्तीति दूरतरापास्तं कर्मप्राधान्यम् । एवं सति ज्ञानोत्तरं यत्र कर्मविद्धाश्रमा भगवद्धर्माश्च युगपत्प्राप्तास्तत्र प्रबलदुर्बलभावस्य प्रत्यवायादिबोधकवाक्यैर्वैपरीत्ये प्राप्ते तदपवादायादरः प्रकाश्यते ततश्च भगवद्धर्माणां बाधाभावः सिद्ध्यति ततश्च इतरेषामादराभावेपि प्रत्यवायश्रवणवैय्यर्थ्यपरिहाराय तेषां गौणकाले करणमद्धापिधानव्यवस्थयाप्यतेऽतो न तेषां कर्माङ्गत्वमित्यर्थः ॥ २२ ॥ ननु यद्येवं तर्हि गौणमुख्यन्यायेन तेषां कर्मणामप्रयोजकत्वात्परमहंसेष्विव भक्तेष्वपि प्राप्तिरेव न सम्भवतीति व्यर्थोयं विचार इत्याकाङ्क्षायामग्रिमाधिकरणं पाक्षिकप्राप्तिं हृदिकृत्य तत्प्रयोजन- बोधनाय प्रणयतीत्याशयेन सूत्रं पठन्ति तन्निर्

निराबाधत्वमित्यर्थः । अस्मिन् पक्षे विचारस्य स्मार्तत्वमेव पुरःस्फूर्तिमारोहतीत्यतः पक्षान्तरमाहुः यद्वेत्यादि । तस्यैवेति, परमात्मनो लभ्यत्वं वरणजन्यसर्वात्मभावसाध्यमेव, तेन सर्वात्मभावो वरणैक- लभ्यो न त्वितरसाधनसाध्य इत्यर्थः । एतेन सर्वात्मभावसाधनकत्वप्राप्तिबोधकं पूर्ववाक्यं वरणलभ्यत्व- बोधकश्श्रुत्यर्थनिर्णायकमिति न तस्य पक्षस्य स्मार्तविचारत्वमिति बोधितम् । ननु पूर्वोक्तवाक्ये भकुतो- भयसाधनतया शरणागतेः सर्वात्मभावपूर्वकस्वप्राप्तेरेवोपदेशः । अकुतोभयं च मुक्तिरेवाक्षरप्राप्तिरूपा, ‘अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसी’त्यादिश्रुत्या तथा निश्चयात् । एवं सति सर्वात्मभावस्य मुक्तिसाधनत्वमेव सिद्ध्यति, न पुरुषोत्तमप्राप्तिसाधनत्वम्, पुरुषोत्तमप्राप्तेः साधनकोटिप्रवेशेन तदपेक्षया मुक्तेरेवोत्कर्षश्च सिद्ध्यतीति पूर्वोक्तं सर्वं द्रविडमण्डूकन्यायमनुसरतीत्याशङ्कायामकुतोभयपदतात्पर्यमाहुः भगवदुक्ते- त्यादि । तथा चास्याः श्रुतेः ‘रसो वै स’ इत्यादिना रसरूपताप्रतिपादनोत्तरमानन्दमीमांसाया ब्रह्मान- न्दस्य गणितानन्दत्वसमर्पणोत्तरमुक्तत्वादस्या उक्त एवार्थो निर्णीयते, भगवद्वाक्ये ‘प्येतत्परमं गुह्यं शृण्वतो यदुनन्दन । सुगोप्यमपि वक्ष्यामि त्वं मे भृत्यः सुहृत्सखे’ति तादृशेतिगोप्यकथनं प्रतिज्ञाय ‘केवलेन हि भावेन गोप्यो गावः खगा मृगाः । येऽन्ये मूढधियो नागाः सिद्धा मामीयुरञ्जसे’ति भावेन बहूनां प्राप्तिमुक्त्वा, को भाव इत्याकाङ्क्षायां ‘रामेण सार्द्धं मधुरां प्रणीत’ इत्यादिश्लोकचतुष्टयेन विगाढभावात्मकं तत्स्वरूपं स्वरूपज्ञानाभावेऽपि तेन भावेनैव परब्रह्मरूपस्य प्राप्तिमुक्त्वा, ‘तस्मा’दि- त्यादिवाक्यद्वयेन सर्वात्मसाधनकस्वप्राप्त्यकुतोभयप्राप्ती उच्ये

एतत्पूर्वोक्तं हे भगवन् अध्येमि स्मरामि । सोहं भगवो मन्त्रविदेवास्मि । शब्दार्थविदस्मि, परोक्ष- शब्दादनुभवमात्रं मेऽस्तीति स्वाधिकारमुक्तवान् । तर्हि किमवशिष्टमित्याकाङ्क्षायां 'नात्मवि'दित्यादि 'तारयती'त्यन्तमाह । तथा चाप्तवाक्यप्रामाण्याच्छोकेन लिङ्गेन स्वस्यानात्मवित्त्वमनुमाय तज्ज्ञानेन शोकं तर्तुमुपसन्नोऽस्मीति नारदाशयः । तदा शोकतारणाय नारदेन विज्ञापितः सनत्कुमारः 'यद्वै किं चाध्य- गीष्ठा नामैवैतन्नाम वा ऋग्वेद' इत्यादिना नारदोक्तानां सर्वेषां नामत्वबोधनपूर्वकं नाम्नो ब्रह्मत्वेनोपासन- मुपदिश्य, 'यावन्नाम्नो गतं तत्रास्य यथा कामचारो भवती'ति तत्फलं शोकतारणायैवमुक्तवान्, तदा नारदः केवलनामत्वेनोपासने उक्तफलाभावं ब्रह्मत्वेनोपासने उक्तं फलं तदपि यावन्नाम्नो गतमित्यनेन नामगति- परिच्छिन्नमिति विचार्य तेन शोकात्तरणं निष्

An accurate line-by-line Markdown transcription of the provided Sanskrit text:

अत्र भूम्नोऽमृतत्वकथनात्कालापरिच्छिन्नत्वं बोधितम् । तथा सत्युत्पत्तियोग्यस्थितिकस्य जिज्ञासोत्सतो नारदः पृच्छति 'स भगवः कस्मिन् प्रतिष्ठित' इति, तत्रोत्तरमाह 'स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न महिम्नी'ति, अत्र पक्षद्वयकथनान्नारदस्य पुनः सन्देहो भविष्यतीत्याशङ्क्य निषेधवाक्यं व्याकरोति 'गो अश्वमिह महिमेत्याचक्षते हस्तिहिरण्यं दासभार्यं क्षेत्राण्यायतनानीति नाहमेवं ब्रवीमी'ति, गोभ्वादिरूपे महिम्नि न प्रतिष्ठित इत्येवमहं ब्रवीमीत्यर्थः । तर्हि स को वा महिमा यत्र प्रतिष्ठित इत्याकाङ्क्षायां 'अन्यो ह्यन्यस्मिन् प्रतिष्ठित इति ब्रवीमीति होवाचे'ति श्रुतिराह । गोभ्वादिभ्योऽन्यो यो महिमा स्वे भक्ते य उत्कर्षरूपो भावस्तस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इत्यर्थः । ( तेनेदं सर्वात्मभावरूपं भूमाख्यं सुखमत्यन्तैकान्तभक्त एवेति निश्चीयते

Here is the complete, line-by-line transcription of the Sanskrit text from the image into Markdown in Unicode Devanagari:

३६ परिशिष्टम् । तकषायाय तमसस्पारं दर्शयति भगवान् सनत्कुमार' इति । सनत्कुमारस्य कृपालुतामाह 'तं स्कन्द इत्याचक्षत' इति । स वरदानेन शिवस्य पुत्रोपि जातस्तेन तथेत्यर्थः । अतःपरं परं सूत्रं व्याकर्तुमाहुः स चेत्यादि । स इति भगवान् प्राप्तपोषकः । स इति, सर्वात्मभावः । तथेति, फलानुग्रहप्रकारेण । तंवेति, वरणं चेत्यर्थः । नन्वात्मादेशे 'आत्मैवेदं सर्व' मिति सर्वस्यात्मत्वभानं भावितं तथा सति स्वात्मन्यपि तदभेदो भाव्यतएव, भाते च तस्मिन् पूर्वोक्तरूपः सर्वात्मभावस्तेन प्रतिबध्यते, न हि स्वात्मत्वेन ज्ञाते ब्रह्मणि विरहभावो वक्तुं शक्यो विरोधादिति हृदिकृत्याहुः ज्ञानमार्गीयेत्यादि । उपपादितमिति, फलदित्सया पूर्वमेव सत्त्वात्प्रतिबन्धकं भगवता न क्रियते एवेतीदमपि न क्रियत [

• is the first word "अतो न" or "अतोन"? Wait, after "नोच्येत,", look at the words: "अतो न पूर्वोक्ते विप्रतिपत्तव्यमित्यर्थः" - wait, where does the 'न' go? Look: "अतो" then space, then "न"? No, wait! Is that "अतो न"? Wait, look at line 3 end: "अत एवेत्यादि । तथा च यदि लाभपदार्थः प्रकाशात्मक एव" Line 4: "स्यात्तदासौपि प्राप्तिपदार्थः कामभोगरूपो नोच्येत, अतो न पूर्वोक्तैर्वै विप्रतिपत्तव्यमित्यर्थः ।"

  Wait, let's read the lines very carefully, character by character, to get 100% fidelity to the print.

  Line by line analysis:

  [Header] परिशिष्टम् । २७

  सन्दर्भे कथनात्, भक्तस्यैव प्रियत्वकथनाच्चोक्त एवार्थः । अतस्तस्मिन्नपि पक्षे तनुप्रकाशलिङ्गेन भक्तस्यैव

  वरणविषयत्वं निश्चीयते, तथा सति स्वीयत्वं तेष्वेव सिद्धमिति पूर्वोक्तप्रकारेपि न कश्चिद्दोष इति हृदि-

  कृत्वोक्तार्थदार्ढ

नन्वे[?]त्यादि Wait! Is it "नन्वेतम्येत्यादि" or "नन्वेतन्मत्यादि"? Wait, look at the letter: 'त' is clear. Then there is a 'म' with a loop, connected to 'ये'? Wait, could it be "नन्वेतन्मतेत्यादि"? No, there is an e-matra: म्येत्यादि? Wait, what if it is "नन्वेवमेत्यादि"? No, look at 'त': it has a vertical and left hook. That's 'त'. Then the next letter has a square/loop like 'म' or 'व'? Wait, is it "नन्वेतन्मन्महे"? Wait, look at the word: "नन्वेतम्येत्यादि" - look at each glyph: न-न्वे-त-म्ये-त्या-दि. Wait! Could it be "नन्वेतस्येत्यादि"? In some fonts, 'स्य' (sa-ya) looks like 'mya'! Wait! Look at 'तस्येत्यादि' in line 3: "एतादृशस्येत्यादि" -> 'स्ये' has a loop on left, stroke down, attached to ya with e-matra! Compare that 'स्ये' in line 3 with the glyph in line 28: In line 3: 'स्ये' in 'एतादृशस्येत्यादि'. In

परिशिष्टम् । २९ 'स्वे महिम्नी'त्यस्य स्वस्वरूपे व्यापक इत्यर्थः सेत्स्यतीत्यस्वरसमुद्भाव्य पक्षान्तरमाहुः स्वरूपामके महिम्नीति वेति । अनेनापि प्रकारेण व्याख्याने तत्रासिरित्यर्थः । तथात्वं व्याकुर्वते भगवदित्यादि । सर्वभावस्य रसात्मकत्वाद्वगवद्भेदः प्रागेव विवृत इति महिमरूपत्वं विवृण्वन्ति तदितरेत्यादि । तथा च भावस्याधिकरणसापेक्षत्वादर्थादेव तत्रासिरिति सोपि पक्षो न दुष्ट इत्यर्थः । एवं सर्वात्मभाव एवात्रोच्यत इति व्याख्याय पूर्वोक्तशङ्कामपाकर्तुं सर्वात्मभावलिङ्गानि स्फुटीकुर्वन्तः सूत्रस्थं हेतुं व्याकुर्वन्ति सञ्चित्यादि । त्रिविधा इति द्वितीया निरूप्येत्यनेनान्वेति । तमेवानुबध्नाति, भृतभक्तं भृतभक्तिनिष्ठं भावमेव वा गोचरयतीत्यर्थः । तत्र हेतुः । तच्छब्देत्यादि । 'स वा एष' इत्यनेन पुरुष उच्यते, 'एवं पश्य'न्नित्यादिना दर्शनमननादिकर्तृतायोधनेन भाववैशिष्ट्यं च स्फोट्यंत इति पूर्वोक्तानुबन्धदर्शनात्तादृशभक्तिनिष्ठसर्वात्मभावरूप एव महिमा तत्राभिप्रेत इत्यर्थः । एवं सतीति भिन्नं वाक्यम् । उक्तरूपे महिम्नि विद्यमान एव श्रुतिसङ्गतिरित्यर्थः । लिङ्गं व्याकर्तुमादिपदार्थमाहुः आविपदादित्यादि । तत्स्वरूपं विवृण्वन्ति पूर्वमित्यादिना । स्फुटमग्रे । ननूक्तयुक्तिभिरत्र भवतु सर्वात्मभावस्थाप्यत्र फलत्वेन सर्वग्रन्थिमोक्षस्यैवोक्तत्वात्तस्य च 'भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थि'रिति श्रुत्यन्तर- स्वारस्येन परावरदर्शनफलरूपस्यैव ग्राह्यत्वात्तस्य च 'तमेवंविद्वानमृत इह भवती'त्यादिश्रुत्यन्तरे मुक्तिरूपत्वेनैवोक्तत्वादस्यापि मुक्तावेव यदि पर्यवसानं तदा फलतो न कश्चिद्विशेषः । अथ न, तदा प्रकृते फलोक्तिविरोध इत्यस्यापि फलबलेन पूर्वविकल्पत्वमेवेत्याशङ्कां हृदिकृत्वा सूत्रांशमवतारयन्ति ननु सर्वैत्यादि । प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्ववदिति, प्रज्ञान्तरकृतं पृथक्त्वं प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्वं तद्वत् न बाध इत्यन्वयः । एतमेवार्थं व्याकुर्वन्ति मुमुक्षु भक्तत्यादि । शेषं प्रकटार्थम् । दृष्टश्च तदुक्तमित्यत्रापि न बाध इत्यन्वयो बोध्यः । एवं च दर्शनान्तरे हृदयग्रन्थिभेदनं नानाविधवृत्त्यनुत्पत्तिरूपम्, अत्र तु सर्वग्रन्थीनां प्रविमोक्षो नानाचित्युदयेपि तासामबन्धकत्वरूपमिति दर्शनभेदात्फलभेदस्तत्क्रतुन्याया- दप्युपपन्न इति भावः । लिङ्गविरोधपरिहारायाग्रिमं पठतीत्याशयेन सूत्रं पठन्ति न सामान्यादिति । विरोधं व्युत्पादयन्ति नन्वित्यादि । प्रतिपाद्यत इति । 'सालोक्यसार्ष्टी'ति वाक्ये उच्यते । एवं सतीति, श्रुतिस्मृत्योर्विरोधे सतीत्यर्थः । उक्तप्रमाणं सालोक्यम् । अनेकश इति, 'आदित्यो यूपः यजमानः प्रस्तरः स एष एव मृत्युर्य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुष' इत्यादावित्यर्थः । प्रकरणादिति, लभ्यत इति शेषः । अत एवेति, लोकान्तरस्य सूत्युत्पत्यत्वादेवेत्यर्थः । परेणेति सूत्रे ॥ श्रुतिवाक्यपदेन, 'न पश्य' इति श्लोको बोध्यः । अनुबन्ध इति, अनु- पञ्चादुच्यते सम्बध्यत इत्यनुबन्धः । उक्तार्थे अपुष्टार्थत्वं विभाव्यार्थान्तरमाहुः अथवेत्यादि । अग्रिमसूत्रभाष्यं तु प्रकटार्थम् । अन्ये त्वेतत्सूत्रमग्रिमाधिकरणे योजयन्ति । तदग्रे विचारणी- यम् ॥ २५ ॥ एवमेनाधिकरणेनाभिहितभक्तिरूपसर्वात्मभावरूपं तस्य सर्वसाधनोत्कृष्टत्वं तत्फलं च निर्धारितम् । अतःपरम् । १. एतावदेवेोपलब्धमिति । 1997

EDITOR'S NOTE. After the publication of the first two Pādas of the Adhyāya III of the Aṇu Bhāshya with Bhashya-Prakās'a and Ras'mi, we have been fortunate in the further acquisition of manuscripts by the Grace of Lord Kṛishṇa. In the introduction to Pāda I we stated that the Bhāshya Prakās'a the original of which in the author's own hand is in our possession missed the final revision made by the author himself, and the additional portions found in some copies of of the Prakās'a were of the authorship of S'rī Purushottamaji himself even though not found in the original manuscript. This inference was based merely on our familiarity with the style of Purushottamaji, which was apparent in those passages. Our diffidence was the more because the learned author of Ras'mi had not chosen to write his commentary on those passages. Gopes'varaji has based his Ras'mi on the original manuscript of Prakās'a which came in his possession through his father Gokulotsavaji who was adopted in the Purusho- ttamaji's house by Mahāraṇi Vahuji at Surat. Gopes'varaji would seem to look upon the passages of Prakās'a not found in the above original with an eye of suspicion, and we find him in the Pāda III throwing doubt on those passages of Prakās'a on the ground of their not being found in the original in his possession. In his Ras'mi also he omits commenting on those passages. This decision of Gopes'varaji was rather unfortunate. As will be presently seen these passages of Prakās'a are Purushottamaji's own, and Gopes'varaji's omission to comment on them has increased our difficulties in approaching those passages for a thorough understanding. It was rather a happy coincidence that in basing the text of the Prakās'a for our edition we did not follow Gopes'varaji's view. We always felt that those additional passages of the Prakās'a, though not found in the original, were of the authorship of Purushottamaji. Our surmise was that Purushottamaji's original must have been got copied fair, and a final revision on the same must have been made by Purushottamaji himself. Thus these additional passages were due to a final revision and as such ought to be included in the authentic text of the Prakās'a. Hence we have acted accordingly from the very beginning. Our conjecture as to the final revision has happily turned out to be true. Through the kindness of Mr. Natavaralal Iccharam Desai B. A. of the famous Gujarati Press we have been able to secure that very copy of the Prakās'a in which Purushottamaji has made additions and revisions in his own hand and which are not found in the original wholly written in his own hand. Except these additions and revisions the rest of this manuscript is written in neat hand- writing by a scribe. This neatly written portion contains the whole of Purusho- ttamaji's Prakās'a original, while the additions and revisions seem to have been made by Purushottamaji himself in his own hand when he finally revised his Bhashya-Prakās'a. The text of the Prakās'a of the present Pāda is based on the original so far as its text was common with the above-mentioned fair copy and for portions not found in the above-mentioned original, it is based on the

II EDITOR'S NOTE. additions in Purushottamaji's hand in the fair copy. Thus the whole text of the Prakāś'a is based on the most authentic basis. The same lines will be followed in the edition of the subsequent portions. Another thing to note is this. The last Adhyāya and a half, though the authorship of the same is attributed to Vallabhacharya, is actually from the pen of Vitthaleś'vara, his second son. Scholars like Krishnachandraji and Purusho- ttamaji have mentioned this fact in their works Vritti and Prakās'a respectively III. 2-34. B. S. The Sāmpradayika Gatha also states that the last two Adhyā- yas of Aṇu-Bhashya were composed by Vitthaleś'vara under the directions of his father. But we did not learn from the above the materials on which their suggestion was based. The statement of Purushottamaji that the second Varṇa- ka of the Anandamayādhikaraṇa and the Aṇu-Bhāshya from III. 2-33 was Vitthales'vara's, appeared to be perfectly correct from the style and views express- ed there in. Any one familiar with the language of Vallabhacharya could without doubt say that the passage 'क्वचित् गोकुल' etc in III. 3-1 was not of the authorship of Vallabhacharya. This difficulty has been now solved beyond any doubt. In search of MSS. of the missing portions of Ras'mi, we again went on a tour to Nathadwara. Through very great kindness of H. H. Tiket S'ri Govardhana- lalji Maharaja and his son Lalbava Saheb S'ri Damodaralalji we got access to the original MSS. carefully preserved there. To our great delight and satis- faction we found an almost complete Manuscript of the Aṇu-Bhāshya Adhyā- ya IV and three last pages of Adhyāya III Pāda IV and second interpretation of III, 4-19. 'अनुज्ञेयं' in the handwriting of Vitthaleś'vara himself. This unexpec- ted discovery of the original Manuscript of the Anu-Bhāshya has been fruitful of many far-reaching results. It has put beyond the shadow of doubt the authorship of the last two Adhyāyas of the Anu-Bhashya. Purushottamaji's statement in Prakās'a III. 2-24. 'इत आरभ्य प्रभुभाषित' is based on a firm and reliable basis. He, it seems, had access to the above original of the Aṇu- Bhashya. On the leaves of this original MSS. there are fine paper-slips. On these paper-slips there are remarks pointing out the portions of the Aṇu-Bhāshya to which those pages belonged. These remarks, it appears to us, are in Purusho- ttamaji's own handwriting. This fact has led us to prefer Prakās'a's readings of the Aṇu-Bhāshya in preference to others. This original Manuscript with all its additions and revisions taken into consideration proves beyond doubt that Vitthaleś'vara is the author of the last Adhyāya and a half of Aṇu-Bhāshya, though the 'इतिश्री' in the name of Vallabhacharya in Vitthaleś'vara's own hand would suggest that he himself desired to allow the public to know that Vallabha- charya was also the author of the same. The ambiguous verse 'भाष्यपुष्पाञ्जलिः श्रीमदाचार्यचरणाम्बुजे । निवेदिता तेन तुष्टा भवन्तु मयि ते सदा' is consistent both with the author- ship of Vallabhacharya and Vitthaleś'vara. In one case we have to understand the word Acharya as referring to Badarayaṇa and in the other to Vallabhacharya. This fact explains the references to Vitthaleś'vara's Vidvanmaṇḍana and Bhakti- Hansa in this portion of the Aṇu-Bhāshya. References to the Adhyāyas III and IV in Subodhini and Nibandha would go to show that Vallabhacharya himself wrote complete Bhashyas on both the Mīmāṁsās. But it seems Vittha- 1999

les'vara got Vallabhacharya's Bhashya on the Brahma-Sûtras upto III-2-33. It seems this was the only portion in his possession when he composed his Vidvan- maņdana. It was at a late stage, after he adopted Gokula near Muttra as his permanent residence, and when he seems to have lost all hopes of securing a complete manuscript of his father's Brahma-Sūtra-Bhashya, that he undertook to complete the Bhashya fragment of his father on the Brahma-Sūtras. In order to distinguish this Bhashya from that of his father, he seems to have named it Aņu-Bhāshya. In Subodhini Vallabhacharya does not refer to his commentary on Brahma-Sūtra as Aņu Bhashya, but only as Bhāshya without the word Aņu. The absence of any pungent expressions, which we find in the Vidvanmaņdana, against opponents in the Aņu-Bhāshya portion of Vitthales'vara would clearly show that the portion of the Aņu-Bhāshya by Vitthales'vara is the work of his mature age. We express our heartfelt obligations to H. H. S'rî Govardhanalalji Maharaja of Nathadwara and his son S'rî Damodaralalji for allowing us the use of the said original manuscript of the Aņu-Bhāshya, and for giving us photographs of some of its pages. In due course photo-blocks of the same will be ready, when the Vaishņava public will be in a position to know Vitthales'vara's handwriting. A picture of Purushottamaji is placed in this volume. The original was obtained by us from S'rî Dwarkanathaji's Mandira at Kankroli in Mewar, through the kindness of H. H. S'rîmad Goswamini S'rî Saundaryavati Vahuji, the mother of S'rî Vraja Bhushaņaji, the present occupant of the seat. We also thank Seth Lalji Naranji J. P. for having given his consent on behalf of the trustees for defraying the cost of getting the blocks made and printed. One of the manuscripts utilised in basing the text of this Pāda-Bhashya has turned out to be of S'rî Kalyāņarayaji, the frther of the Great S'rî Harirayaji. This Kalyāņarayaji is the first grandson of Vitthales'vara. We beg to draw the attention of the scholars of the Sampradāya as well as others to the Paris'ishta printed here. It is almost a complete commentary on the Guņopasaṁhāra Pāda of the Aņu-Bhashya. It was made available to us by the late Mr. Tansu- khram M. Tripathi B. A., the veteran scholar of Gujarat. On a comparison of the same with the Prakās'a, we find that almost the whole of it is incorporated in the Prakās'a. It seems possible from the style of expression and method of writing that Purushottamaji owes much to this. Its style resembles that of Krishņacha- ndraji's Vŗitti. If so, the comparative method of exposition followed by him in Prakās'a owes its origin to the genius of Krishņachandraji. This Krishņa- chandraji was born on the 7th day of Dark half of S'ravaņa 1655 Samvat. He was the guru of Purushottamaji both in name and fact. It is possible that Krishņa- chandraji wrote his commentary from the very beginning, and the same is incor- porated in the Prakās'a as here. We request scholars to make a search for the same. If found, it will be the oldest commentary on the Aņu-Bhāshya. The copy of the Guņopasaṁhāra-Pāda-Vivaraņa printed in the Paris'ishta seems to be the original in Krishņachandraji's own hand.

$\left.{l} Bombay, 27-4-27. \right}$ \hspace{4em} 2000 \hspace{8em} M. T. Telivala.

श्रीकृष्णाय नमः । श्रीमद्ब्रह्मसूत्राणुभाष्यम् । शुद्धाद्वैतब्रह्मवादनिर्गुणभक्तिमार्गप्रवर्तकाचार्यचक्रचूडामणि- श्रीमद्वल्लभाचार्यचरणप्रणीतम् । दशदिगन्तविजयिश्रीमद्गोस्वामिश्रीपुरुषोत्तमचरणप्रणीत- भाष्यप्रकाशसम्पूर्णवेत्तृश्रीमद्गोस्वामिश्रीगोपेश्वरजि- चरणप्रणीतभाष्यप्रकाशरश्मिपरिवृंहितम् । तृतीयाध्यायस्य चतुर्थः पादः । 'भगवद्धर्मपरायण सद्गत श्रेष्ठि गोवर्धनदास सुन्दरदास' इत्यस्य पुष्टिमार्गीय- संस्कृतसाहित्यसमुद्धारार्थं निर्दिष्टद्रव्यसङ्ग्रहतः 'प्राप्तभगवत्पद मूलचन्द्र तुलसीदास तेलीवाला, बी. ए., एलएल. बी., वकील, हाइ कोर्ट' इत्येतेषां सुहृद्भिः संशोध्य 'निर्णयसागर' मुद्रणालये मुद्रयित्वा प्रकटीकृतम् । श्रीवल्लभाब्दाः ४४९. संवत् १९८४. मूल्यमेकमुद्रिका ।

S'rī Vitthales'vara and Aṇu Bhāshya. S'rī Vitthales'vara Dīkshita, the author of the last Adhyāya and a half of the Aṇu Bhāshya was the second son of S'rī Vallabhāchārya. He was born at Charaṇāta near Allahabad on the 9th day of the dark half of Mārgas'īrsha, 1572, Saṁvat. Vallabhāchārya in his later life adopted Adel as his permanent residence, and therefore Vitthales'vara passed his childhood there. When Vallabhāchārya took up Tridaṇḍa-Sannyāsa in 1587, Vitthales'vara was a boy, fifteen years old. His elder brother S'rī Gopīnātha was senior to him by five years. His Upanayana ceremony was performed by Vallabhāchārya, but his early education seems to have been of a desultory character. A Gāthā current in Sampradāya states that 'Vitthales'vara in his childhood was given to playfulness. He did not seem to realise the heavy responsibility that lay on his shoulders, so Dāmodaradāsa, the chief among Vaishṇavas, is said to have remonstrated with young Vitthales'vara and persuaded him to study, and thus be fit to bear the responsibility of the Sampradāya as the worthy son of a worthy father. There is no doubt that Dāmodaradāsa had his share in turning 'Vitthales'vara ffom worldly playfulness to the meditation of Krishṇa-Leelā. Chāchā Harivaṁs'ajī was another personality who influenced Vitthales'vara in the successful discharge of his duties as Āchārya. Chāchā Harivaṁ- s'ajī's proselytizing tendencies were great. It was he who generally visited a place in advance and prepared it for the acceptance of Vitthales'vara's teachings. It is not known from whom Vitthales'vara got direct help in the profound learning which is manifest in his works which are available now. A Gāthā says that Vitthales'vara was sent by Vallabhāchārya to Mādhava Sarasvatī for his studies, but instead of studying anything at his place, he devoted his time to reading S'rīmad Bhāgavata. Whatever may be the truth in the above Gāthā, it is an undisputed fact that like his father, Vitthales'vara had a very great hold on and absorbing attachment to S'rīmad Bhāgavata. After Vallabhāchārya passed away in 1587, Gopīnātha and Vitthales'vara lived together at Adel. Except perhaps two small works named Sādhanadīpaka and Sevāpaddhati, we are not aware of any important work of S'rī Gopīnātha, and so we have not got materials to decide how far Vitthales'vara was indebted to his elder brother S'rī Gopīnātha, for his future literary activities. S'rī Gopīnātha and his son Purushottama seem to have passed away between 1590 and 1600. After this, Vitthales'vara became the recognised representative of his father, and thereafter he seems to have planned various tours, and thought of writing works for the propagation of the Sampradāya. Unlike S'aṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhva, Chaitanya, and a host of others, Vallabhāchārya preferred to follow the Aupanishada traditions, and like Yājnyavalkya and others, became a Grihastha Āchārya. After him, his

( 2 ) elder son-too, became a Grihastha Āchārya. S'rī Gopīnātha got Vitthales'vra married to S'rī Rukmiṇī, a daughter of Vis'vanātha Bhatta and Bhawānī of his own caste. The relations of the two brothers were of a very cordial nature. A letter* addressed by Vitthales'vara to his elder brother reveals the high regard which he had for him. When Gopīnātha and his son Purushottama passed away, Vitthale- s'vara seems to have begun his tours. His first visit was from Adel to Gujarāt in the year 1600, and his second visit to Gujarāt was also from Adel in 1613. In Gujarāt his activities were chiefly confined to Ahmedabad, Cambay and Godhra. In Godhra, one Nāgajī Bhatta was initiated in the Sampradāya by him. This Nāgajī Bhatta was, it is said, a state-officer, and the name Pancha Mahals owes its origin to his activities. He was a Sāthodrā Brahmin. Mr. Kes'havalāl Harshadraya Dhruva, the veteran Gujarātī scholar, is said to be a descendant of this Nāgajī Bhatta. When- ever Vitthales'vara visited Gujarāt, Nāgajī Bhatta always took advantage of his company. A few of the original letters addressed by Vitthales'vara to Nāgaji Bhatta are preserved even to this day at Nathadwara in Mewar. Nāgajī Bhatta seems to have been a very intelligent follower. Various questions seem to have been put by him to Vitthales'vara. He seems to have been a very active agent in spreading the doctrines of Vallabhāchārya in his country. After having read Subodhinī, Nibandha etc., he wanted to know as to what was the kernel of Vallabhāchārya's teachings. In answer to this query, Vitthales'vara sent to him a beautiful couplet which sum- marises the doctrine in the choicest words. It runs as follows:— श्रीवल्लभाचार्यमते फलं तच्चात्मसमर्पणमव्यभिचारिहेतुः । प्रेमैव तच्चित्तवचोधनक्रियान्योन्योपयोगोऽखिलसाधनानाम् ॥ According to the view of Vallabhāchārya, भगवत्प्राप्य is the फल, and the unfailing remedy for it is love for Him, while all other Sādhanas are useful in generating this love. Nāgajī Bhatta remained in company of Vitthales'vara not only in Gujarāt, but he often visited Adel to pay his respects to him. He is said also to have visited the shrine of S'rī Nāthajī-Govardhanadhara- at Jatīpura on the Govardhana Hill, and stayed there for a couple of months. Thus it would seem that Nāgajī Bhatta was familiar both with the practice and theory of the Sampradāya, and he was instrumental in the rapid spread of the Sampradāya from Samvat 1600 onwards in Gujarāt. Another personality who helped in the spread of Sampradāya was *The letter runs as follows:— स्वस्ति श्रीमन्महेन्द्रभ्रातृचरणकमलेषु यवीयसो विठ्ठलस्य प्रणामकोदिनिवेदनमेवं परम्परतः । समिह, भगवत्प्रसादात्थे । अहं भगवदाज्ञया रासोत्सवपर्यन्तं श्रीगोवर्धनवरधरचरणारविन्दसंनिकटे स्थितोऽस्मि । हरिद्वारे प्रसादा न वाट्येति न मन्तव्यम् । अत्र ममास्वास्थ्यं बहु जातमासीत् । उपवासदशकं कृतम् । अधुना भगवत्कृपयया च नैरुज्यं जातमस्ति । कापि चिन्ता न कार्या । अद्या-अम्बा-अष्टादशपर्वसु गन्तव्यः । अद्या यथा दुःखं न करोति ममास्वास्थ्यं श्रुत्वा तादृक् कर्तव्यम् । अत्रापि कापि चिन्ता न कार्या मम, अश्वादि सर्वत्र । यादवेन्द्रपुरीषु महात्मनेषु दीक्षितेषु हरिहरवाग्भटायण्णूआदिषु हास्यकथाः । ...भिक्षाप्रसादिप्रसादिभिः । अस्मत्संबन्धिनाम्नां मन्तव्यः । 2002

( 3 ) Bhāilā Kothārī of As'arvā near Ahmedabad. When Vitthales'vara visited Dwarka or Gujarāt, he used to put up with him for a couple of months. Bhāilā's son-in-law Gopāladāsa has given the Sampradāya a charming and unique poem in Navākhyāna. The Sampradāyika Gāthā relates that this Gopāladāsa was Narsinha Mehtā in his preceding birth. Whatever that may be, it helps one in furnishing the latest date of Narsinha Mehtā. Vitthale- s'vara's first visit to Gujarāt was in 1600 St, and Gopāladāsa was then nine years old. The poem of Gopāladāsa (Navā Khyāna) has been the most popular and revered among Vaishṇavas. Every Vaishṇava, male and female, recites it. Commentaries in Sanskrit and Vraja Bhāshā are written on it. The commercial people of Gujarāt have been fascinated by it. This poem, it seems, has been instrumental in shaping Vaishṇava attitude towards the Mahārājas. The intensely tender feelings with which the Mahārājās are looked upon have their genesis in the spread of this lyric. It speaks of Vitthales'vara as Goswāmiji. He assumed the surname of Goswāmi in 1634, after he was granted permission by Emperor Akabar to graze his cattle on all lands including the Royal ones. From this it would seem that this poem of Gopāladāsa could not have been composed before 1634. The Sāmpra- dāyika Gāthā informs us that the inspiration of this poem came to Gopāladāsa from Vitthales'vara himself. It is said that Gopāladāsa, who was dumb, miraculously got his powers of speech as a result of the chewing of the betelleaf offered by Vitthales'vara. When he visited Bhāilā's house, numerous persons came to see him and joined his Sāmpradāya. In Cambay, Jivā Pārekh, a celebrated Baniā merchant was instru- mental in the early spread of Vaishṇavism. On the whole the spread of Vaishṇavism in Gujarāt was not only rapid but complete. Numerous castes and sub-castes wholly embraced the Vaishṇava Cult. This continued in increasing proportions during the times of the succeeding generations of Vitthales'vara. Vitthales'vara himself visited Gujarāt not less than six times. His first visit was in 1600 from Adel. The second one was also from Adel in 1613. The third one was from Gaḍā in 1619. The fourth one was from Mathurā in 1623. The fifth one was in 1631 from Gokula. And his sixth and last visit was also from Gokula in 1638. This would show that for nearly forty years Vitthales'vara exercised his influence over Gujarāt and Kathiāwād. The visits to Gujarāt were incidental to his visit to the shrine of Dwārkānāthaji at Dwārkā. His desire for and interest in Dwārakā and Gujarāt were created by the early reception of his father and his elder brother S'rī Gopīnātha. Rānā Vyāsa, a learned pupil of Vallabhāchārya, was an active worker at Siddhāpura. So also there was one Gopāladāsa of Naroda. Vallabhāchārya himself had visited Dwārakā not less than three times, his last visit being in 1585. He is said to have stayed at Dwārakā for over six months. The Swarūpa of Dwārkānāthaji at Bet-Dwārkā was installed there by Vallabhāchārya. 2003

( 4 ) In the year 1616, on Māhā Vad 13th, Vitthales'vara visited the shrine of Jagannātha in Puri ( Orissa ). He was there accompanied by his wife Rukmiṇī, his eldest daughter S'obhājī and his eldest son Giridharajī. He stayed there for nearly six months. After witnessing the Rathotsava at Puri, he seems to have returned to Adel. During his visit to Puri he had taken with him a carpenter by name Rāsā. This was with a view to see the model of the Jagannātha Car. It is said that when Vitthales'vara returned to Adel, he got a car prepared of a similar model, and took his deity round the village of Adel in a procession. During his stay at Gaḍā also he celebrated a Rathotsava similarly. But when he shifted his abode to Mathurā he had to give up the public celebration of Rathotsava on account of the Mahomedan fanaticism. During his stay in Jagannātha, Vitthale- s'vara came in contact with the immediate followers of Chaitanya, living there. It is possible that the composition of Swāminyashtaka ( स्वामिन्यष्टक ) Swāminīstotra ( स्वामिनीस्तोत्र ) and several other minor stotras, in which the Eternal consort-Rādhā-of S'ree Krishna is extolled, date from this period; or their composition may be due to the direct or indirect influences of Chaitanya saints. There is no stotra or writing of Vallabhāchārya to our knowledge where Rādhā is extolled in the strain in which Vittales'vara has done. How far and how much of this influence was retained by Vitthale- s'vara it is difficult for us to determine from the materials available, though the conclusion of the Aṇu-Bhāshya where Navanīta-priya ( नवनीतप्रिय ) and Govardhanadhara ( गोवर्धनधर ) only are remembered would show that Vitthales'vara in later times had completely freed himself from the Chaitanya influences. His commentary on Krishṇapremāmṛita ( कृष्णप्रेमामृत ) and S'ringāra- rasamaṇḍana ( शृङ्गाररसमण्डन ) may be due to Chaitanya mould of thought. Or that was the time when the wave of Rādhā-Kṛishṇa worship swept over the whole of India, and it would be difficult to say exactly how far the influence of Chaitnya thought there is in the above Stotra. The originality of thought and method of expression are Vitthales'vara's own. But we would not be wrong if the composition of the above Stotras was assigned to this period. It is possible that these Stotras are due to Sarasvatī- Saṁvāda and nothing else. After his return from Puri, Vitthales'vara seems to have resided at Adel from Samvat 1616 Āshāḍh to the beginning of 1619. On the analogy of Jagannātha, car-festivel was celebrated here. It was during this period, that he composed his Vidvanmaṇḍana. A manuscript dating from वैशाख शु. १२ सं. 1619 leads us to this inference. In any case, we cannot assign any later date than this to the composition. In 1619 it appears that Mahomedan invasion made Vitthales'vara give up his abode at Adel for good. From Adel, after his stay at two or three places, he seems to have moved over to the kingdom of Bāndhe Gaḍhā. Rāmachandra, a Waghela Rajput, was the king of the place. He seems to have received Vitthale- s'vara well, who stayed at this place for a couple of months. The relations 2004

( 5 ) of Giridharaji the eldest son of Vitthales'vara were very cordial with this prince. The eldest son of Giridharaji by name Muralidharaji was born here on Vijaya Das'amī day. Tānsen the famous minstrel was formerly a musician of king Rāmachandra, but he had to hand him over to Emperor Akbar. This Tānsen seems to have come into contact with Vitthales'vara here. But Vitthales'vara did not stay here long. In later days when Vitthales'vara adopted Gokula as his permanent residence, this king Rāmachandra visited Gokula. He was well received by Vitthales'vara and Giridharaji then. From Bandhe-Gadhā, Vitthales'vara seems to have moved over to Gadhā. It is difficult to say whether the modern Jubbulpore on the banks of the Narbadā was Gadhā of those times. Vitthales'vara's Bethak near Jubbulpore would go to show that Gaḍā was situated somewhere there. The havoc wrought by Akbar's general Asafkhan is so complete that it has become difficult to identify the place. Vitthales'vara's desire to go to Gaḍa was natural. Gadhā was ruled over by queen Durgāvati. She was a princess of great reputation. She was married to Dalpatishah in a very romantic manner and out of this union a son was born. When he was three years old, Dalpatishāh died. Since then Rāṇi Durgāvati was the de facto ruler of Gadhā acting as Regent for her son Vīra Nārāyaṇa. Even after he was of age she continued to rule over the kingdom. Fiftytwo Gaḍhas (fortresses) were included in her kingdom. She fought many battles, and on account of her exceptional valour she was called Durgashāh. She was very religious and patronised numerous learned Brahmins. Some of the Telugu Brahmin families who were connected with Vitthales'vara's family by marital ties lived there. Besides, next to Vijayanagara, the only independent Hindu kingdom where Vallabhāchārya was recognised as the greatest Āchārya by the then ruling king Krishṇadeva, this princess Durgāvati was the only independent Hindu princess in whose kingdom Brahmins were encouraged and people were extremely happy. Her government was a faultless one and Akbar's attack on this princess is considered by competent historians to be nothing more than wanton destruction for self-aggrandizement. When Vitthales'vara came to her Capital first of all, he put up on the banks of Jammniya-talao or the Rāni-talao. Durgāvati was so much impressed with his saintly character, high learning and sublime devotion to Krishṇa that she visited his Ās'rama frequently and requested him to accept Gadhā as his permanent residence. Suitable arrangements were made for his stay. During his three years' stay the relations between him and the Queen were very cordial. Vitthales'vara's first wife Rukmiṇī passed away about this time, and he had absolutely no desire to marry again. But under the pressure of Rāṇi Durgāvati Vitthales'vara had to marry Padmāwati daughter of Krishnāraya Bhatta on Akshaya.Tritiya day of 1620. On another occasion Durgāvati gave a gift of 108 villages to Vitthales'vara which were in their turn gifted away by him to Bhattas, his caste people, who were living there and whose descendants to this day are said to be in the enjoyment of the same. During his stay at Gadhā, a Brahmin by name Brahmadāsa came 2005

( 6 )

in his contact. He was blessed by Vitthales'vara by giving him his own waist-coat. From this day the fortunes of this Brahmadāsa began to rise and ultimately he became one of the trusted advisers of Emperor Akbar under the now well-known name of Birbal (बिरबल). This Birbal's relations with Giridharaji were very intimate, as could be gathered from the letters of Vitthales'vara. He seems to have helped Vitthales'vara a great deal when the possession and control of the shrine of Shree Nāthaji on the Govardhana Hill were taken over by Vitthales'vara some time later from the Bengālee worshippers.

After his stay for about three years, Vitthales'vara perhaps noticed that even this kingdom of Durgāwati would ultimately be invaded by Akabar's armies. In samvat 1621 (1564 A. D.) a pretext was found out by Asafkhan by demanding from her, her favourite elephant Gurudār. She naturally refused to comply with the demand. The attack of Asafkhan is the more glaring because Durgāvati's prime minister Adhāradasa was deputed by her to the court of Akbar. This seems to have influenced Vitthales'vara in giving up his residence at Gaḍhā. He therefore expressed his desire to Rāṇi Durgāvati that he wanted to go and reside on the banks of the Yamunā (Jumna). To meet Vitthales'vara's desire Rani Durgāvati caused to be built at Mathurā the Seven Houses which became ultimately known as 'Sat-garā'. Vitthales'vara and his seven sons lived at Mathurā in this Satgarā. It was in these Satgarā that for about two months or so S'ree Nathaji was brought on Fālgun Kṛishṇa 7, 1623 from the Govardhana Hill by Giridharaji when Vitthales'vara was on his visit to Gujarāt. These seven houses do not exist now, but the place on which they stood is to this day known as Sat-garā at Mathurā. It is situated behind Chhattā Buzaar on the west, and the pilgrims for Parikramā start from this place. At Gaḍhā, Vitthales'vara had very pleasant times. He celebrated the Rathotsava festival. The car was taken in a big procession round the capital in which Rāṇi Durgāvati took part with all the nobles of her court. In fact all the resources of the state were requisitioned for the celebration of the Rathotsava.

When Vitthales'vara left Gaḍhā, Rāṇi Durgāvati sent her minister Adhardāsa, to accompany him with a large escort.

After he left Gaḍhā Vitthales'vara does not seem to have been visited by Rāṇi Durgāvati. She lost her life while fighting valiantly with Asaf- khan, and her son Veeranārāyana also seems to have met with a similar fate. The rich treasures of the Royal treasury were looted by Asafkhan, and were carried away by him. The ravage done was so complete that no definite marks of this illustrious princess's kingdom could now be traced by historians. The traces of Vitthales'vara's stay in Gaḍhā are fortunately preserved by his Bethak, near Jubbulpore which is said to be the place where his second marriage with Padmāvati was celebrated as mentioned above.

2006