Sambodhi 1990 Vol 17

Author(s): H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 28

"ANUBHASYA OF SRI VALIABHÄCARYA VIS-A-VIS "THE VED ANT/ "BY V. S. GHATE"
The bhaiya (commentary) of Sri Vallabhääcryn (V.) on the Brahmasütras (B.S.) of Badarayana (A.B.). is known as Anu Bhasya (A. B.) Somehow it has received the same attention as it really deserves at the hands of Vedäntists. To substantiate this thesis it is proposed to give here a critical review of the Dr. V. S. Ghate in his "The Vedanta" as regards the A.B. of V.
In his comparative study of the bhasyas of the five great caryas, viz. Śrt Sankaracarya (S), Śrt Ramanujacarya (R.), Sri Nimbärkäcārya (N.), Sri Madhvacārya (M.) and Sri Vallabhäckrya (V.), Dr. Ghate has given the palm of superiority to N. While doing this he has passed several remarks as regards A.B. which deserve to be reviewed and refuted in the light of a fresh critical study of A.B. Moreover, there are some other remarks passed by him as a result of some misunderstanding of the real purport of B.S. These also deserve to be reviewed and controverted.
While passing all remarks Dr. Ghate declares his ehief object as follows:
"The question before us is one purely of literary criticism and not one of philosophy proper. Here is a literary product before us and here we have so many interpretations of it; and our object is to see which of these if any, has faithfully represented the natural and straightforward meaning of the original, apart from the inherent value of the doctrines propounded by them." From this it becomes clear therefore that Dr. Ghate did not study the five bhasyas from the point of their inherent philosophical values. His aim was purely literary criticism which led him to do grave injustice to the great acaryas.
It should be borne in mind that the extremes like 'purely literary' and 'purely philosophical' are detrimental to the very spirit of the works like B.S. which are primarily philosophical. Here, it is philosophy that counts more than anything else. Again, the five bhasyas were certainly written for philosophical purposes and not as purely literary products as the learned doctor would have us believe.
Here an attempt has been made to present a true and faithful interpretation and evaluation of only some of those parts of A.B. which have been misinterpreted or misrepresented by Dr. Ghate.