Part 16 - Vallabha and His Date

[Full title: Other Commentators and their Works (2) Vallabha]

Vallabha comes next in point of time. He was a Velanati Brahman and belonged to the Telugu country. He was the son of one Lakshmana Bhatta and Elamagara. He was born in the Vikrama year 1535, or A.D. 1479. (See Yajnesvara, Aryavidyasudhakara, quoted by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, Vaishnavism, Saivism, etc., 77, f.n. 1; see also Gada, Sampradaya Kuladipika, third Prakarana; Seshagiri Sastri, Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., I, No. 35, p. 16; and Muralidhara, Sri Vallabhacharya Charita, ibid., No. 51, p. 23.) His birth would, therefore, have to be assigned to the reign of the Vijayanagar king, Mallikarjuna (1446-1487 A.D.), who was succeeded by Saluva-Narasimha I, the founder of the Second Vijayanagar dynasty (see Mysore Gazetteer, new edition, II, iv, 1600-1666). How long he lived is not determined yet. There is, however, a Sanskrit copper-plate record found at Govada, in the Tenali taluk of the present Guntur District, dated in Saka 1466, or A.D. 1544, cyclic year Krodi, Sunday, Paurnami, in the reign of the Vijayanagar king, Sadasiva Raya,

which registers a gift of that village to Vallabhacharya himself, who is highly praised as a Vaishnava teacher in it. (See Inscriptions in Madras Presidency, II, Guntur 825, quoting Local Records, Vol. 48, pp. 29-37 and Vol. 42, p. 274 et seq.) This inscription would seem to suggest that Vallabha was 65 years old at the time of the grant referred to in it. There is nothing improbable in this, the more so as the inscription bears eloquent testimony to the fact of the great fame that Vallabha had attained by that time. If this be so, he should have lived down to the early years of Sadasiva Raya's reign (1542-1570 A.D.) (see Mysore Gazetteer, II. iii, 2012). In Gada's Sampradaya Kuladipika, which was written in 1544 A.D., it is stated that at a meeting held at the court of Krishnadeva-Raya, the Vijayanagar king (1509-1530 A.D.), over which Vyasatirtha, the Madhva guru, presided, Vallabha defeated the opponents of Vaishnavism. (See Seshagiri Sastri, Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., I, No. 35, p. 16.) The statement is repeated in Muralidhara's Sri Vallabhacharya Charita. This would suggest that Vallabha visited Vijayanagar during the reign of Krishnaraya, the great Vaishnava king. As Chaitanya lived between 1486-1534 A.D., it would seem that he was a junior contemporary of Vallabha, though he died earlier than the latter. His Life and Wanderings. Both the Sampradaya Kuladipika and the Sri Vallabhacharya Charita give long accounts of the life of Vallabha. (See Seshagiri Sastri, Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., I, Nos. 35 and 52, pp. 14 and 25.) The first of these, though an early work-having been written within ten years of the Govada record-is somewhat legendary in character and in parts anachronistic. For instance, Vishnuswami is represented to be earlier than Sankara and Ramanuja posterior to Madhva. But there is no need to condemn it as wholly worthless. Though it might be wrong in regard to particulars relating to others, it might be held to be fairly correct where it gives details

about Vallabha himself. Among the statements made by it in connection with him are that he was a staunch defender of Vaishnavism; that he defended the Vaishnava faith at the court of Krishnadeva Raya, the Vijayanagar king, with Vyasatirtha presiding over the public disputation; that he defeated his opponents there; that he went northwards to Prayag, near Allahabad, thence to Sthanesvar, near Haridwar; that he converted one Ramananda by performing a miracle (that of miracle (that of breaking a Salagrama and then reuniting it in its original form); that at the request of one Kesavabhatta, he commented on the Bhagavata fully; that he also wrote Bhashyas on the Bhagavad-Gita and fifty of the Upanishads and taught them to his two disciples Narayana and Achyuta; that he then reached Ganges (at Benares) and became a Tridandayati 25 and that he then turned a householder and had two sons Gopinatha and Vitthalesvara, the former of whom had a son Purushottama and the latter had many sons, one of whom was Giridhara. 20 The Sri Vallabhacharya Charita adds the statement that Vallabha was god Vishnu 25 See page 121 ante for the meaning of Tridandi. Evidently Vallabha was at first an ascetic of the Tridandi order and subsequently turned a householder and begot two sons, who carried on his work. 20 Besides the two sons, he had a daughter who, it is said, married Lalubhatta, the author of Lalubhattika, an incomplete tika on the Anubhashya. (There is another tika on the Anubhashya by Vrajanatha Goswami, son of Raghunatha.) If Vallabha was born in 1479 A.D. and was still living in 1544 A.D., as the Govada copper-plates suggest, there is scarcely any reason to doubt the correctness of the dates assigned to his son Vitthala. Vitthala is said to have been born in V.S. 1572, or A.D. 1516 and died in V.S. 1642, or A.D. 1586. He is said to have been a contemporary and personal friend of Akbar, the Mughal Emperor (1556-1605 A.D.). At the time of Vitthala's death, Akbar should have been in the 30 th year of his reign. Vitthala's son Gokulanatha is said to have been a contemporary of Jahangir, the son of Akbar, who ruled between 1627 and 1658 A.D. A study of the above dates for Vallabha, Vitthala and Gokulanatha show that there is nothing prima facie wrong about them.

incarnate on earth. It also states that he was given birth to by his mother on the way to Benares in the 8 th month of her pregnancy and that accordingly, he was, as a child, abandoned by his parents in a forest; but found safe on their return journey. It also gives out the facts that Vallabha began his wanderings in his 22 nd year, that Damodaradasa was his first disciple and that he paid a visit to his maternal uncle at Visakhanagar (Vizagapatam). It also records, as already mentioned, the success he attained over the opponents of Vaishnavism at Krishnadeva Raya's court at Vijayanagar. He then went up northwards to Gokul and Brindavan, at which latter place he engaged in the constant worship of Sri Krishna. Thence he proceeded to Marwar propagating all the while the Vaishnava religion. The miracle of the broken Sala grama is duly recorded in this work also, which further sets down another miracle. In the course of his peregrination, he met a person-we are told-who was searching for a lost Salagrama of his. Vallabha, it would appear, made a whole tree appear to the person full of Salagramas hanging on its branches, each of which was like the one for which the person was seeking. He next visited Pandharpur and worshipped god Vitthala there and then proceeded to Benares where, in accordance with a divine injunction, he became a married man, taking for his spouse the daughter of one of his own disciples. He had two sons, Gopinatha and Vitthala, the latter of whom had seven sons, the names of four of whom are mentioned in this work. The sons and grandsons, we are told, constantly preached and propagated the worship of Sri Krishna and won adherents to Vallabha's faith. His Disciples and Literary Works. Such are the stories told in the MSS. referred to above. There can be hardly any doubt that Vallabha belonged to the Telugu country, that he was learned and wrote many works, that he travelled extensively to propagate Vaishnavism and that he finally settled down in Upper India. Tradition of a well-authenticated kind states that he lived at Adail, some

eight miles from Allahabad and that he died there. Those who follow his religion are to be found mostly in Bombay, more especially in Guzerat, Rajputana and Muttra. There are, however, a few immigrant merchants in the Madras Presidency who are adherents of Vallabha's religion. Accordingly MSS. of his works are occasionally to be met with in Southern India as well. (See for references to these, Seshagiri Sastri, Madras Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., I, Nos. 26-42, 46, 46 e, which is wrongly described; also Madras D.C. of Sanskrit MSS., XI, Nos. 5123-5156.) Among these are the following:Brahma-Sutrabhashya, which is a commentary on the Brahma-Sutras of Vyasa, Bhagavatatatvadipika, also called Tattvadi panibandhana or simply Tattvadipa, 27 which fixes the meaning of the Bhagavata, a work very similar in intent to Anandatirtha's Bhagavatatatparyanirnaya; Sannyasanirnaya, which inculcates the methods of Sannyasa; Antaha-karana-prabodha, well described as an apostrophe to the mind in which Vallabha declares that Sri Krishna is the Supreme Being and that devotion to him in love and faith brings salvation; Jalabhedastotram, 28 a work classifying the divine qualities of Vishnu according to the qualities found in certain varieties of water; Vivekadhairyasrayanam, on the need of wisdom, courage and faith in God for the attainment of salvation; Sevaphalam, which sets forth the advantages to be derived from piety and loving devotion to Lord Sri Krishna; and Balabodha, which deals with the two ways of pursuing the objectives dharma, artha, kama and moksha. The Pushtipravaha-maryada, which is attributed to Acharyachandra, may perhaps be also set down to Vallabha. This work is devoted to the doctrines 27 Vallabha was the author of only a part of this work. He composed the commentaries on the first three Skandhas of the Bhagavata, the rest being done by his son Vitthala as is clear from the colophon to the fourth Skandha. 28 There is a commentary called Jalabhedatika : Bhavapurna, on this work by one Kalyanaraya (Madras D.C. of Sanskrit MSS., XI, No. 5126),

of the Pushtimarga, the name given to the primary doctrine of Vallabha. His'Anubhashya'. About his Brahma-Sutra Bhashya, a few more words have to be added. It is called Anubhashya,29 because it is written briefly. Vallabha is said to have written another commentary (Bhashya) of which only a portion is said to be available.30 Mr. P. S. T. Pathak, who has edited the Anubhashya, says that he has filled in the gaps found in this work from the fragments of the other commentary he was able to secure. He also states that much of the matter contained in his other commentary has also been incorporated by him in his commentary called the Balabodhini, which really makes up Vol. II of his edition. Vallabha, however, was not the sole author of the Anubhashya. It is held by some that while the first eleven Sutras-upto and inclusive of Anandamayabhyasat-was composed by him, the rest of this work, upto its very end, was written by his son Vitthala. Whether this is so or not, the fact that Vitthala was part author of the Bhashya appears to be acknowledged by him in his comments on III. 2. 34, Sthana viseshat prakasadivat. Mr. Pathak points out that from this Sutra onwards, the Anubhashya upto its end was composed by Vitthala (Anubhashya, II. 47). This is so despite the fact that the colophons to the work uniformly read that "this work, being a commentary on the Brahma-Sutras, entitled the Anubhashya, was composed in accordance with the school of Vedavyasa by Vallabhacharya." Evidently, though Vitthalesa composed part of the Bhashya, it having been commenced by his father, he composed the colophon in his name, or may be, left the original colophon untouched. This inference 29 Edited by Pandit Sridhar Tryambak Pathak, Shastri, Deccan College, Poona, in two Parts, in the Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series, 1921, of which it forms Vol. LXXXI. 30 Was this the first commentary written by him of which Anubhashya was a short suminary? Cf. Anandatirtha, of whose BrahmaSutra Bhashya his Anubhashya is a further exposition,

" INTRODUCTION 145 " seems to be confirmed by what he says in concluding his commentary on the IV Adhyaya. Here Vitthalesa states that he offers this commentary (Anubhashya), which he styles Bhashyapushpanjali, a handful of flowers called the Bhashya, at the feet of his venerable Acharya. He adds: 'May he be pleased with this my humble presentation (see Anubhashya, IV. 4. 22, verse preceding the colophon). Mr. Pathak correctly suggests that the term Acharya here means Vallabhacharya and not Vyasacharya as has been suggested by some authorities. As Mr. Pathak suggests, the word asmabhiti indicates that Vitthalesa carried out the duty of completing the commentary in accordance with the directions of his father and teacher. A few of the differences observable between Vallabha and Vitthala as commentators may be noted. In the first two Adhyayas, for which Vallabha was responsible, there are no slokas. These are a feature in the two other Adhyayas which Vitthala composed. While long, involved sentences (dirgha samasas) are to be found in the son's part of the Bhashya, they are scarcely to be seen in the father's. In Vallabha's portion, we have occasional implicit references to previous commentators, but in Vitthala's such references are not to be seen. Vallabha depends for his interpretations on the Samhitas, which he frequently quotes; Vitthala, beyond the references he makes to the Isavasya, Gopalatapani and a few other Upanishads, hardly ever puts the Samhitas to a similar use. Vallabha was evidently a highly learned personage, being greatly proficient in Patanjali's Mahabhashya. In his Tatvadipanirnaya (II. 50), he shows as great skill as Patanjali himself does in his comment on Supakopoyupa in his own Bhashya (I. 3). A point worthy of note in regard to Vallabha is that he made the Bhagavata the basis for his interpretation of the BrahmaSutras. He reads the Sutras in the light of the Bhagavata. The opening part of his Bhashya is much like that of Bhagavata. He takes the following verse from the Bhagavata (VI. 9. 36) and makes it the foundation for his commentary on the sutra, Srutestu sabdamulatvat (II. 1. 27): 10 F

" arvacina vikalpa vitarka vicara pramanabhasa kutarkasastra kalilantahkaranasraya duravagrahavadinam vivadanavasare " | Bhagavata, VI. 9. 36. Arvachina vikalpa vitarka vichara pramanabhasa kutarka sastra kalilantahkaranasraya duravagraha vadinam vivadanavasare iti > Though, in his commentary, Pushtibhakti (firm faith) is highly inculcated, Vallabha had profound regard for the Vedas. He, however, does not seem to admit that they have any meaning other than what they prima facie declare. He does appear to admit, like others, that the Vedas have on inner meaning of their own. His Disciples and their Works Of the two sons of Vallabha, Vitthala, the younger, wrote the Bhaktihamsa, which inculcates the doctrine that the Brahman cannot be reached by knowledge, discussion and learning but only by the devotion of the worshipper and the pleasure and permission of the Supreme Being. Besides completing his father's commentary, the Anubhashya, he wrote the Subodhini-tippani, Vidvan-mandanam and the Sringara-rasa-mandanam, Nibandha-prakasa, etc. Another work of his is a commentary called Pushtipravahamaryadavivaranam, on his father's work Pushtipravahamaryada. He also wrote the Bhaktihetunirnaya. He besides completed his father's work, the Bhagavatatattvadipika, as remarked above. On this work there is a commentary called Bhagavatatattvaprakasarnavabhanga, by one Pitambara, who was evidently a pupil of Vallabha himself, as he pays homage to him in his work. Sri Krishnatirtha, author of Paratattvavilasa, was perhaps another disciple of Vallabha, for he mentions the latter nit with great respect. The work itself inculcates the idea that Sri Krishna should be worshipped as the Supreme Being. Gopinatha, the elder son of Vallabha, wrote the Sadhanadipika and some hymns (seva sloka). He left a son who died without issue. Giridhara, son of Vitthala wrote the Suddhadvaitamartanda, which is a standard work on Vallabha's religion. He had a number

of learned disciples, prominent among them being Muralidharadasa, Gada and Raghunatha. All these wrote on Vallabha's religion and thus propagated it. Gada³¹ wrote in 1554 A.D. the Sampradaya Kuladipika,³² above referred to. It may be described as a general history of Vaishnavism ending with Vallabha. Muralidharadasa was a more prolific writer. Among his works are:-Bhagavannama-vaibhava, which treats of the greatness of singing the name of Sri Krishna; Sevakalpataru, which treats of the way in which Sri Krishna should be worshipped; Bhaktichintamani, which treats of the saving efficacy of piety and loving devotion to Sri Krishna as the Supreme Being; Bhagavannamadarpana; and the Paratatvanjana, which inculcates the worship of Vishnu under the name of Sri Krishna. This last mentioned work is really a commentary on the Bhagavata, which is represented as an eye-salve to discover the treasure of God. The supreme deity Sri Krishna is to be pleased, according to this work, by rejoicing in singing and hearing of his deeds and qualities. According to the Pushtimarga, God is to be approached only by his mercy and with affection for him. But the greatest of all the works of Muralidharadusa is the Bhaktisutrabhashya, which is a commentary on the Bhaktisutra of Sandilya. This work is divided into three Adhyayas, each of these, again, being subdivided into two ahnikas. The total number of Sutras is ninety-nine. The work starts with Aththatho bhaktisijnasa, in which the word is interpreted in keeping with the highest Vaishnava tenets that bhakti (worshipping the Supreme Being) is to be considered the fifth object of humanity, the four others being dharma, artha, kama and moksha, and that devotion is better than mere knowledge and contemplation. Muralidharadasa, besides, wrote the Si Vallabhacharyacharitra, which is a short prose work giving the story of the life of Vallabha. This work has already been referred to above. In it Vallabha is represented as an incarnation 31 1 Also called Dvivedi-Gada. 32 Sometimes also called Sampradayapradipika. (See Madras T.C. of Sanskrit MSS., I, i. A, No. 32.)

of Sri Krishna. Raghunatha, another disciple of Vallabha, wrote the Bhaktihetuvivritti, which is a commentary on Vitthala's Bhaktihetunirnaya, above mentioned. Purushottama, a disciple of Vallabha, wrote the Suvarnasutra, which is a commentary on Vidvanmandanam, a work dealing with the tenets of Vallabha's faith. Another Purushottama, who was the son of Pitambara, disciple of Vallabha, wrote the Siddhantarahasyavivaranam, which is also a work devoted to the origin and tenets of Vallabha's religion. Among other works expository of it are Atmanivedanam, which stresses the value of self-surrender to the will of God as a means of salvation; Haridasasiddhanta by Haridasa, which inculcates self-surrender to Sri Krishna as the way to realization; and Premabhaktirasayana, by an unknown author, who was probably a disciple of Vitthala. The last of these sums up the Vallabhite position in characteristic fashion. The jivatman is a part of the Brahman. When it is separated from the Brahman, the jiva's qualities of sat, chit and ananda, become invisible to the jiva, being lost in worldly life, the Brahman, though he is living in him, seems far away. The Jiva, though separated from the Brahman, may be united with him. This union may be one of the five different kinds :--Salokya, living with him in the same place; Sarupya, possessing the same form; Samipya, living in his vicinity; Sayujya, union with him; and lastly, the rejoicing at the singing and hearing of his deeds (rasaliladilakshana bhajanananda). Closely connected with the doctrine of Bhakti as taught in this school is the allied one of Nirodha in relation to it. Many treatises have been written on this topic. Thus, in the Nirodhalakshanam, Pushtipravartakacharya defines what is indicated by Nirodha,33 which means complete annihilation, in relation to bhakti. Other notable works on the subject are Nirodhavivritti, by Lalubhatta alias Balakrishna, and Nirodhavritti-Samsayavamsachcheda. The first is really an 33 With the Buddhists, Nirodha meant the suppression of pain. In Vallabha's system, it means something quite different.

explanatory gloss on the Subodhini, which itself is a commentary on the tenth Skandha of the Sri Bhagavata; and the second is a further commentary on the Nirodhavritti. Balakrishna was also the author of Prameyaratnarnava, a standard work on Vallabha's religion, which has been published in the Chowkhamba Series. Lalubhatta wrote, besides, Anubhashya-tika, Nibandha-tika, Subodhini-tika and Sodashabandha-tika. His Indebtedness to Vishnuswami. Vallabha's system of Vedanta is said to have been based on the writings of one Vishnuswami, of whom little credible is known. The Sampradaya Kuladipika of Gada, a disciple of Vitthala, the younger son of Vallabha, 34 describes him as the son of a minister of a king who ruled for some years "after the commencement of the Kaliyuga". It speaks of him as an incarnation of Vishnu. Later it adds that he was instructed in the Visishtadvaita faith by God Vishnu himself, and that Bilvamangala spread his doctrines. (See Seshagiri Sastri, Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., I, No. 35, p. 15.) Sir Ramakrishna Gopala Bhandarkar quotes Yajnesvara (Aryavidyasudhakara, p. 228) for the statement that Vishnuswami was the son of the councillor of a Dravida chief and assigns him to the middle of the thirteenth century A. D., on the basis of Nabhaji's assertion in his Bhaktamala, that Vishnuswami's successors were Jnanadeva, Namadeva, Trilochana and Vallabha. The first of these three was the author of a commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, dated in 1290 A.D. 35 This seems too early a date, for this would make Vishnuswami practically a junior contemporary of Madhva, whereas the system of Vishnuswami, apart from its philosophical aspects, had nothing to distinguish it from Madhva's, except his worship of Radha in conjunction with Krishna. Nor is the suggestion of the Sampradaya Kuladipika that Vishnuswami was taught the Visishtadvaita system by God Vishnu himself 34 See below, where the work is further referred to. 35 Vaishnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, 77.

prove any more helpful. 36 Though Srivaishnavism existed before Ramanuja, Visishtadvaita as a system came to prominence only after him. The date of Vishnuswami accordingly would have to be fixed not only after Ramanuja but also after Madhva. We may not be far wrong if we assigned Vishnuswami to about the close of the thirteenth century A.D. What we know of Vishnuswami's system. is not from his own works but from those of others. Thus the Sakalacharamatasangraha of Srinivasa 3 gives a brief account of it. This is a late work-much later than Vishnuswami and professes to be a history of philosophical systems. According to it, the system of Vishnuswami holds that the primeval soul was not joyful, because he was alone, and, desiring to be many, he himself became the inanimate world, the individual soul and the inward controlling soul. These sprang from him like sparks from a burning fire and are his parts. By his own inscrutable power, he rendered the properties of intelligence and joy (chit and ananda) imperceptible in the first, and his joy (ananda) alone in the second, while the third has all the attributes perceptible in it. Simple Brahman as such has perceptible joy (ananda) prevailing in it. His System of Vedanta. As will be shown below, the theory of Vallabha is not unlike Vishnuswami's, though he enlarges at length on ideas peculiar to himself. According to him Brahman is not only the material but also the efficient cause of the universe. (See Vallabha's Anubhashya, I. 1.4.) Brahman, according to him, is not merely the Creator of the universe but he is really the universe itself. This is so, because the universe has complete connection with him. Next, he asserts that creation is not a false imagination, for, according to him, the universe is not false. It is verily Brahman (ibid.). The texts of the Vedanta, he says, teach moksha 86 From the chronological point of view, the Sampradaya Kuladipika is a work that has to be used with caution. 37 Printed in the Chowkhamba Series.

in passages like the following:-"He who knows Brahman verily becomes Brahman"; "the knower of Brahman attains the Highest" (Tait., II. 1. 1); "he does not come back"; "having known Me fully, he enters into Me" (Bhagavadgita, XVIII, 55). Thus the attainment of Brahman is the highest end of man. The Brahman is not merely the Self of the jivas, but of all. According to Vallabha, then, Brahman is not only the Creator of the universe but he is the universe. But he does not create by allying himself with Prakriti but through his own nature. The Creator of the universe is Brahman; but that Brahman is not gauna but nirguna Brahman. If the Creator of the universe were a guuna being, then the person devoted to him could not rise higher than his object of devotion and as that being is gauna and in the world, his devotee would accordingly remain always in the world. But the Sruti declares that the Creator of the universe is Brahman and devotion to him leads to release. If the Creator were a gauna being, release would be impossible (Anubhashya, I. 1. 7). Vallabha interprets the first seven sutras of Badarayana (I. 1. 5 to I. 1. 11) as showing that Brahman who is sat (existence) is also chit (intelligence). Because the word Ikshan is applied to Brahman, he has to be taken to be conscious intelligence. It follows that Brahman is-and not the unintelligent Pradana-Creator. Brahman, though transcendental, yet by the very declaration that "he thought" and thus created the world, he made himself a subject of perception also. "Though I am unmanifest and transcendental, yet let me, through creating these worlds, become manifest and the object of comprehension." This is the kshan (thinking) of Brahman which precedes creation. Though Brahman cannot be known by pramana (proofs), yet he is known when he wills. He is both agent and non-agent. Being transcendental, all opposites find a solution in him. To hold otherwise, would go against the declaration in I. 1. 15. This sutra refutes the view that Brahman is non agent and that creation proceeds from his coming into relation with Prakriti. This is not so.

Brahman creates through his own nature. Brahman is, however, not only sat and chit but also ananda (joy). In his view the eight sutras commencing with anandamaya abhyasat propound this view. Anandamaya is the cause according to him, of all the modified forms of ananda that we find in this world. As the sat-chit Brahman in his substance is unmodified, though he is the substantial cause of all worlds, so this anandamaya modified is the cause of all diversities of ananda in this world. For the jiva to enjoy all blessings along with Brahman, it is necessary to show that it possesses the same attributes as the Brahman, for two things cannot enjoy a common experience unless they belong to the same category. It became, therefore, necessary to prove that the jiva is made on the image of Brahman. This the Taittiriya Upanishad proves. The annamaya (physical body) is built on the mould given by the pranamaya (astral body). This, in its turn, is built up on the mould of the manomaya, which again is built on the mould of the vijnanamaya, which finally is built on the mould of the anandamaya. The anandamaya being Brahman, the jiva which is vijnanamaya, is built on the image of the anandamaya or Brahman, and is fitted to enjoy all blessings. along with Brahman. Therefore, this anandamaya, the inmost, is the real agent, and is the paramaphala, the highest fruit, reached by the jiva and this anandamaya is the topic of the whole of the second valli of the Taittiriya Upanishad. The whole of this Upanishad leads up to this anandamaya as the highest fruit obtained by the knower of the Brahman. Thus anandamaya is the highest Brahman. When a jiva comes to know Brahman, it becomes anandamaya. This anandamaya vesture is a superphysical one. The jiva, however, is not anandamaya. This is because of the impossibility of its being so. It is true in the state of Brahma-knowledge it enjoys ananda, but it cannot be said to become on that account anandamaya. For then the jiva would also become the creator of worlds like Brahman; and where would then be the transcendental uniqueness of the Supreme? Anandamaya is the giver of bliss to the

[[[ p. 214 ]]]jivas and so he cannot be the jiva, as there is always a distinction between the obtained and the obtainer, the giver and the donee. In commenting on I. 1. 31, Vallabha states that the attributes of the jiva are not in conflict with those of Brahman, because all the activities of the jiva are under the control of Brahman; asritatvat because of being under his protection. Brahman is the support of the jiva also; therefore all the activities of the jiva are under the command and control of Brahman. Therefore, jiva attributes may be properly said to be the attributes of Brahman. Thus, in his system of Vedanta, Vallabha states that whatever view you may take-the jiva being a part of Brahman, or a combination of certain aspects of Brahman-the part being contained in the whole, the attributes of the jiva may be applied to Brahman. According to him, the word iha used in the sutra (I. 1. 31) applies to both, i.e., iha asritatvat and iha tad yogat. He says that this is so in his own system of Vedanta-the Brahmavada system as he calls it. In his system, jiva and Brahman are real and therefore we can properly say that Brahman is the support and jiva the supported. But according to Mayavada-the system of Sankara-jiva and Brahman are identical and so there can be no relation of the support and the supported between them. Similarly the dharmas of the principal life-breath may appropriately be applied to Brahman because of iha tad yogat. Tad yoga means union with that, the existence of the attributes of prana in Brahman is not incompatible. Because prana is in constant relation with Brahman, the qualities of prana may also be said to be qualities of Brahman.