Sri Vallabhacharya - Pushti Darshan

Vallabhacharya's Anubhasya 51
to be most unnatural. In all probability Vallabhacarya wrote the Anubhasya on all the sutras of the Brahma-sutra. But
after his death the widow of his first son, Gopinatha; quarrelled with his second son; Vitthalanatha. and taking away
some of the common property including the Mss. went away to her father's place. It may be that the folios of the
Anubhasya from 1II.2.34 upto the end of the Brahmasutra and many other works might have been taken away by the
widow, and Vitthalanatha might have rightly thought of finishing the work of his father. The present Anubhasya,
therefore, happens to be the work of the father and the son.
Like a true thinker Vallabhacarya approaches all problems both synthetically and analytically, and thereby does fun
justice to the subject. His interpretation of the Bhdgavat consequently appears in the analytical and synthetic forms,
the first in his commentary Subodhni on the Bhagvata and the second in his work, Bhagvatarth - Nibandha. He also
wrote a brief commentary on the Bhagavata, called Suksana tika which is unfortunately not available in Toto. He has
also summarised his doctrines most briefly in sixteen short treatises. Vallabhacarya thus gives two editions of his
works, one small and the other big. In the same spirit he composed an extensive commentary on the Brahmasutras
which might have been called Bhasya or Brhadhhasya, and a brief one called Anubhasya. A parallel example is found
in the literary history of the school of Madhvacarya. Madhvacarya, as is well known, composed four works as
commentaries on the Brahma-sutras, viz. (1) Bhasya, (2) Anubhasya or Anuvyakhyana, (3)Anuvyakhyanavivarana
and (4) Anubhasya Fortunately these works are available and show that the second work Anubhasya, or
Anuvyakhyana as it is -otherwise known, is com- posed after the Bhasya with a view to explain the points at
6 These works are published by T .R Krishnacarya, Madhva Vilas .Book Depot, Kumbhakontam. s. N. Dagupta in his
work: A History of an Indian Philosophy, Vol. IV, pp. 61-62. has wrongly distinguished Anubhasya from _
Anuvyakhyana: Possibly by cofounding Anubhasya with Anuvyakhyana