THE PHILOSOPHY OF SHRI VALLABHACHARYA

Let us, at the outset, make clear what we perceive to be the nature and function of philosophy. We
must do this lest we get involved in fruitless semantic discussion later on. When Pythagoras was
asked if he was a wise man, he replied that he was only a lover of wisdom. Now, in Greek language
the word philosophy means just that love of wisdom. This wisdom should consist in giving us a clear,
consistent and comprehensive view of human life that may guide us in the proper conduct of our
individual lives. Now a person who thinks of life as an accidental fortuitous circumstance will decide to
live in a way quite different from that of one who regards it as a creation of God and therefore holy
and meaningful. Our ethical values depend upon our view of life and the world. This is the kind of
wisdom we seek from philosophy.

In dealing with Vallabha’s philosophy we should also bear in mind a special feature of Indian,
philosophical tradition. Indian thinkers offer their speculations on the nature and function of life as
interpretations of the cryptic contents of ancient religious texts. Hence their philosophy inevitably has
a semi-theological character. A thinker like Vallabha belongs to the category of Thomas Aquinas
rather than that of Spinoza. This religious derivation, however, does not in any way detract from the
philosophical value and significance of their work.

We shall first give an outline of Vallabha’s philosophy, and follow it up with a detailed analysis of
his philosophical works. We shall then show how his philosophy forms the basis of his teachings.

While Vallabha belonged to the group of theistic Vaishnava thinkers- Ramanuja, Nimbarka,
Madhava and Vishnuswami, he differed from them in several vital respects. He found that the other
schools had interpreted the sacred texts according to their preconceptions and predilections. He
wished therefore to work out a system of his own fully and literally in accordance with the texts, a
system that would serve as a philosophical framework for the path of Grace that he wished to
propagate.

Authoritative sources of knowledge concerning life and world :

Vallabha accepts four basic works as the highest authority for formulating a system that would
explain the real nature of life and the world. These are (i) the Shruti – the Vedas and the Upanishads,
(ii) the Bhagawad Gita, (iii) the Brahmasutra and (iv) the Bhagawata. These sources complement one
another. When a doubt arises about the meaning of a certain expression or pronouncement, the
preceding authority is to be interpreted in the light of the authority that follows in the above mentioned
order. As a result of this relative position, the Bhagawata comes to enjoy a most honoured status in
Vallabha’s system. The Bhagawata is regarded as an exhaustive commentary on the earlier works
(Tattwartha Dipika.)

Brahman : Vallabh a strictly abides by the Brahmasutra diestrum that there is no other authority
than the shruti on the subject of God. He interprets the seared texts most literally without reasoning
about the sightedness of the point of view. He criticizes Shankara for interpreting Shruti texts which
have a holy character in a way to suit this preconceived notions. He not only castigates Shankara’s
methods but goes on to describe him as prachchhanna Bauddha – a crypto Buddhist
(Anubhashya1.3.12).
 Brahman is the one ultimate unchanging reality. Ekoyam Advitiyam. It is given the appellation
purushottama, and is endowed with akaar or form. This form consists of sata (existence), and ananda
(bliss). So Brahman is Sachchidananda. Brahman has the power to become anything and everything
at any time. The material world and the souls both derive their being from Brahman which is therefore
the material and the efficient cause of life and matter. But the cause and effect are non-different from
one another. A thing of gold, a ring or a necklace, remains gold. A change of shape or form does not
involve a change in its intrinsic nature. Life and the world come out of the very essence, swaroopa, of
Brahman and not from some power of Brahman as found in other Vedanta systems. The Supreme
Being becomes the world through a process of modification (parinama). This does not, however,
imply any change in the form and character of the supreme being.

Vallabha accepts three forms of Brahman : (i) Para Brahma of Purushottama, (ii) Antaryamin, (iii)
Akshara Brahman. Purushottama is, as we have said, the highest reality the supreme being par
excellence. Antaryamin is another form of Brahman that governs the soul or the living element.
Akshara Brahman is the form that is described in the Upanishads and the Gita as Avyakta. This form
is that which incarnates itself as a human being. But even as such the Lila or the actions of the divine
being, although seeming to be human, have a divine non-sensual character. Only those souls that
have divested themselves of all that is sensual and selfish can experience the Lila in its true sense
and with God’s anugraha or grace even participate in it.

The World : The world is a manifestation, a swaroopa, of God. It is not a creation. All things take
their rise from him. The material universe that our senses perceive is a manifestation of the sata
aspect without the chita and ananda. Brahman here imposes a limit on itself, but this is no way affects
its own nature which is unchangeable. The effect is the cause itself in another form, and thus there is
no dualism. Everything is Brahman Sarvam khalu idam Brahma. This is the most salient feature of
Vallabha’s system of Brahmavada : it gives us a real world, not an empty dream or illusion or
shoonya. It is a physical (adhibhautika) form of Brahman. The world is jagata, and jagata is Brahman.
But the soul does not see the objects in their true form. Selfishness (ahamta) and mineness (mamata)
obscure vision and produce an erroneous experience. The veil of ignorance transforms jagata into
samsara. Vallabha draws a fine distinction between the real world and the unreal world and shows us
that the two worlds are in truth one. This distinction between jagata and samsara helps in upholding
and affirming the basic unity of all things in pure non-dualism the shuddha adwaita.

The soul : The soul is a partial manifestation of Brahman. It represents the sata and the chita
aspects of the supreme being, while the ananda aspect is suppressed. Vallabha speaks of jeevas or
souls as being the minutest fractions of Brahman that yet possess an all pervading characters.

He supports this conception on the basis of what is said in Katha Upanishad concerning the nature
of the soul (Kath Up. 1-2-20). He regards them as so many sparks that fly out of a fire. As spiritual
beings souls are above time and space, untouched by decay and death. But their separation from
purushottama and the suppression of the quality of ananda give rise to avidya or ignorance and the
manifold miseries of human life. The ignorance leads them to weave around the jagata or the real
world a web of I-ness and Mine-ness and thus create for themselves a samsara, the illusory unreal
world of their own imagination. This samsara is a creation of the individual soul, and it differs from
person to person. The samsara of a farmer is not the same as the samsara of a philosopher. “Avidya
jeevasya prakruti”, Vallabha declares. As we have said above, it is the suppression of the quality of
ananda that gives rise to avidya. It also results in the asuri element in the jeeva which renders it
incapable of receiving the grace of God. An asuri jeeva finds no release from samsara.

Liberation or Release from samsara : Vallabha has divided souls into three categories in the
descending order : (i) pushti, (ii) maryada, and (iii) pravaha. Souls that aimlessly move in the world,
drifting like straw in a current, belong to the class of pravaha. Others who, realizing their imperfection
due to the suppression of ananda, seek merit through ritual sacrifices, meditation and other means
laid down by the scriptures, merge in the Akshara Brahman as a result of their efforts. These devout
souls, however, do not realize the full glory of Purshottama. This ultimate goal of human life can be
attained only through the grace of God that comes to elected souls who pursue with single-minded
devotion and total self surrender the path of pushti or anugraha. This doctrine of the election of souls
is a special feature of Vallabha’s system. Pushti is held to be opposite of, and superior to, maryada.
With God’s grace the suppressed element of ananda is added and the soul in its fullness attains
divine bliss. The nature of the loving devotion is well brought out by Narada when he says the souls
should feel the pangs of separation and the ecstasy of the union as did the milkmaids in Braj-Katha
Vraj Gopikanam (Narada Bhakti sutra 21)

Even in the brief and bare outline given here certain features of Shri Vallabha’s philosophy strike
us as most significant, and it will be worthwhile to deal with them in some detail. First and foremost,
he maintains that just as Brahman is real so is the world while Shankara taught that while Brahman is
real, the world is not real in the same sense, Vallabha regarded the world as a manifestation of
Brahman differing only in the suppression of two attributes. He puts it most succinctly in the aphorism,
“Brahma satyam jagat satyam anshodivohi naparaha”. This is how he interprets the Upanishadic
maxim, “sarvam khalvidam Brahma”. Vallabha’s most remarkable contribution, as we have already
noted, is the fine distinction he draws between the real world and the world that is created by our
ignorance and ego-sense, between prapaneha and samsara. The one is God’s work, the other is
what we make of it. Samsara is destroyed when ignorance is removed either through knowledge or
through God’s grace. But the real world, the prapaneha, persists as long as God wills, for it is a form
of God. His own being Vallabha’s concept of tirobhava and avirbhava, obscuration and manifestation,
forms the very basis of the doctrine of pure non-dualism or shuddha adwaita. God’s attributes are
differently manifested in different things. But in all things one common attribute of God is manifested,
the attribute of being. Brahman itself, through self limitation, becomes the world, and when the world
is withdrawn it becomes Brahman again. Vallabha finds support for this in Mundakopanishad which
describes the evolution and devolution of the world in the form of a spider weaving a web through its
own being and drawing it back. Vallabha’s concept of tirobhava and avirbhava explains how the
emergence and dissolution of the myriads of existences is accomplished without any change in the
supreme being. In Tatwartha Dipika, Tirobhava and Avirbhava are represented as Shaktis or divine
powers exercised by God. This partial expression, this obscuring of an attribute, explains why life and
matter are different from God. It is on this basis alone that God can be said to be immanent and
transcendental at the same time. It is in this way that God can be both ‘causa materialis’ as well as
‘causa efficiens’.
 A few words must be said regarding another string and significant feature of Vallabha’s system.
This pertains to his characterization and categorization of the souls. Shankara had explained the
plurality of souls by saying that the one Brahman is reflected in avidya or ignorance and appears as
many, and this illusion is no longer there when avidya is removed by right knowledge Vallabha, on the
other hand, on the strength of scriptural authority, holds that souls are many and various, and that
they are real. He interprets the Brahmasutra to mean that the world and the souls together constitute
the body of God with Brahman as the great Universal soul. According to him souls are small,
infinitesimally small, like the point of a grain of rice. This view is based on what is said in Svetasvatara
Upanishad. He draws upon Brihadaranyaka Upanishad for the famous analogy of the coming forth of
souls from Godhead as so many sparks flying off from fire: “Yathagne kshudra visfullinga
vyacharanti”. As against Shankara, and also samkhya, he declares souls to be knowers and doers as
active agents. Each soul is held responsible for what is done by the individual and the principle of
karma operates accordingly. Because they have emanated from God, souls possess God’s qualities
of consciousness and being. It may be objected here that if souls are portions of God, as endorsed by
Krishna in the Gita (XV, 7), then for wrongs committed by individual souls God will be partly to blame
and shall have to suffer accordingly. In order to substantiate the argument it may be said that the
whole body suffers and experiences pain when there is an injury to some part of it. Vallabha quotes
Badrayana and says that although fire burns others, it is not itself affected by it. Souls are portions of
God, but they are not God : they have only two of God’s attributes. When with God’s grace, and
through knowledge and devotion, they rise to a higher and purer state of existence, they will be with
God but not identical with God.

Vallabha draws upon the categories of souls as found in the Upanishads and the Gita (XVI-5). The
two categories are daivi or divine and asuri or demonic. The daivi qualities in a soul makes it fit for
deliverance whereas the asuri traits lead to bondage and suffering. “Daivi sampad vimukshaya,
nibandhaya asuri mata”, the Gita declares. This twofold grouping of souls in the Gita does not imply
an exclusive and restrictive division. It would seem that both the Gita and the Chhandogya Upanishad
(1.2.1) posit an ascending order in the world. The supreme is manifested more prominently and in a
greater measure in some than in others, more in living organism than in non-living matter, more in
consciousness than in mere existence, more in moral sense than in mere consciousness. They also
assume that there are degrees of daivi and asuri dispositions, of light and darkness. As the
Chhandogya Upanishad puts it. The devas and the asuras are both born of Prajapati. The
Mahabharata also supports this view when it says: “natyantam gunavat kimehana natyantam
doshavat tatha”. Vallabhacharya subdivides both these groups of souls, daivi and asuri, into separate
categories. The pravahi souls are worldly souls. Like straw in a stream they drift here and there with
the everchanging vicissitudes of life and are prey to the vagaries of fortune. They do not discriminate
between the shreyas and the preyas, between the good and the pleasurable. They are not well
disposed towards harmony and holiness, and not inclined to seek the truth. Among them there are
those who are led astray by ignorance (agyana), and for them there is hope of redemption. Even
when they do not attain liberation in this life in spite of their receiving the light of knowledge, the merit
acquired by them will accrue to them in the next life in the form of an innate desire for spiritual
regeneration. That desire that a person is born with is called the dharma-beeja, and when the beeja is
nurtured with devotion and strengthened with God’s grace it grows into a mighty tree. But there are
other pravahi souls (durguna) whose wickedness is not a result of ignorance but is ingrained in their
very being, and for such souls there is no hope whatsoever. They will go from birth to birth until the
end of the world, reaping the fruits of their actions according to the karmic law. When their samsara
comes to an end they find no bliss in Golaka nor do they enter into Akshara, but are swallowed up by
darkness. ‘From Naraka one may find release and come away, but not from the darkness that awaits
the doomed soul.’ Vallabha says in Tatwartha Dipika (2.285). The way of grace is closed to such
souls. One finds in this idea of foredoomed and forsaken souls something akin to the Calvinistic
doctrine of Predestination. The harshness of the judgement seems very much at odds with the gentle
spirit of Vallabha’s teachings. Indeed, such a durguna soul may well ask, if it is predestined to suffer,
why it should not persist in its wickedness. But, as the Upanishads warn us, “naisha tarkena
matirapaniya”. In matters of faith, logic will not resolve our doubts. With this sole exception of the
foredoomed souls, Vallabha provides mankind with the institution of Brahma-Sambandha and
sharanagati and seva to make them fit for receiving anugraha or grace of God that would lead them to
liberation. As we have already pointed out in the outline of his philosophy given above, Vallabha holds
the path of loving devotion (Bhakti) as superior to the paths of knowledge and ritualistic action. Here it
must be noted that these ways are not exclusive of each other. Vallabha acknowledges that the
highest devotion is not to be realized without knowledge. And a soul that seeks knowledge develops
some form of devotion two. (Tatshwartha Dipika 1.101) One may follow any one path. But to the
aspirant Vallabha repeats the Upanishadic admonition: “Nayamatma pravachanena labhyo na
medhaya na bahuna shrutena”. Our minds have first to be cleansed of impurity and made fit for the
dwelling of the holy spirit, and our hearts have to be filled with the intense longing for a state of
perfections to be achieved through the grace of God. The best, the easiest and surest, way of doing
this is to make oneself a servant of the Lord, dedicate everything to him, and devote one’s life to
knowing and doing his will.

The Shuddhadvaita of Sri Vallabhacharya belongs to the Advaita category, but it is markedly
different from the philosophy expounded by Sri Shankara. While the apparent plurality of the
phenomenal world is explained by Shankara by invoking the principle of maya which shrouds the
identity of the world with Brahman, Vallabha views them as being both real and identical. His system
is based on four basic authorities, (i) the Upanishads, (ii) the Gita (iii) the Brahmasutra, and (iv) the
Bhagavata Purana. Vallabha holds the last scripture as the best and the most illuminating source of
the Advaita doctrine. Basing his system on the aforementioned authorities, Vallabha declares that
salvation can be attained only through divine grace and not through individual effort. This grace,
anugraha, lends pushti to the soul’s aspiration for perfection, and so the system set forth in
Shuddhadvaita is called the pushti marga.

The central category in Vallabha’s philosophical system is Brahman. Brahman is the supreme
reality whose nature is made up of three attributes – sata or existence, chita or consciousness, and
ananda or bliss, and whose power is unlimited. Brahman, for Vallabha, is not an impersonal entity, for
it has a divine form, a personality. Brahman is the supreme Person, Purushottama, who is an
embodiment of perfect ‘rasa’ or sweetness. This perfect Being is no other than Sri Krishna.

The material world, the universe, which we perceive with our senses, is a manifestation of
Brahman. So are the sentient souls a manifestation of the same supreme reality. This is Vallabha’s
postulate of ‘parinama vada’. The cause and effect in this manifestation are both real. In these
transformations Brahman is the material and efficient cause, and it is not affected by the course of
transformation. This is Vallabha’s ‘avikruta parinamavada’. This concept is based on the Mundaka
Upanishad’s analogy of the spider and its web. Brahman is not external to the world. Its immanence is
declared by a number of shrutis, but most notably by Brahadaranyaka Upanishad (III 7). The Gita,
too, refers to it again and again. But Brahman is immanent as well as transcendent. If its immanent
aspect it is called antaryamin while the transcendent is Purushottama, besides these two there is a
third aspect of Brahman, akshara Brahman, from which all objects issue forth: the whole universe is a
manifestation of akshara Brahman.

The universe and the souls are real, Brahman manifests itself as the material universe by partial
limitation of its own nature. The universe presents us with just one attribute of Brahman: tat or sata,
while the two other attributes suffer an eclipse: this is termed tirobhava. In the same way, the souls
have within them the attributes of sata and chita but lack the attribute of ananda. In this lila, this self-
manifestation, what is specie aeternitatis becomes sub-specie temporis with the inclusion of the
categories of Kala, Karma and svabhava. Our ignorance and consequently our suffering, spring from
our ego-sense and attachment (ahamta and mamata). These cloud our vision so that we fail to
recognise the one in the many. We have already seen how Vallabha classifies the souls under the
heads of pravaha, maryada and pushti. The first type of souls are untouched by any spiritual
aspiration and are given to mundane pursuits. The second type is superior, and has a moral and
spiritual stature. They are inclined to live according to the laws laid down in the scriptures, and seek
liberation through knowledge and holy acts. Even in the best and noblest or souls the six excellences
of Purushottama, the supreme being, are suppressed, and the element of ananda is not present. This
lacuna, this deficiency, is made good only through the grace of God. This divine grace, anugraha, is
the fruit of loving devotion, bhakti. The path of bhakti is open to all: even the meanest of us can attain
to the ultimate glory. The Bhagawata Purana speaks of nine types of bhakti. These are (i) listening to
the Lord’s song, (ii) singing of his glory, (iii) contemplation of his swaroopa, (iv) worshipping of his
image, (v) falling at his feet, (vi) making salutations to the highest, (vii) serving him like a servant, (viii)
developing a sense of friendship and (ix) complete self-surrender. God in his sweet will, not following
an order of merit or any other principle, elects same souls to a higher level of consciousness, and
there liberated souls partake of the Lord’s bliss and participate in the Lord’s lila.

The highest type of loving devotion, according to Vallabha, is that of the gopis, the milkmaids of
Vrandavan for Krishna, and he calls on the bhakta, the devotee, to emulate their example. The gopis
are regarded as the spiritual mentors of the pushti marga. This bridal mysticism in Vallabha’s teaching
has given rise to some very rich and moving literature in north India. Its influence is to be felt even in
the songs of Tagore who dwells on this aspect of religious consciousness in his Hibbert lectures on
the religion of man. Those who follows the pushti marga experience, in the language of Sanskrit
poetics, all the sanchari bhavas of love. They have a painful intense longing (utsukya), a
despondency (nirveda) arising out of long-drawn-out separation from the loved one, followed by deep
dejection (dainya). They may even harbour the feeling of pique or resentment (amarsha). It should,
however, be made clear here that this approach is totally devoid of sensuality. In conclusion we may
note that Vallabha’s teachings assert the primary of feeling over mere intellectual effort and action.
 We may now mention works dealing specifically with Vallabha’s metaphysical theories. Vallabha’s
Anubhashya on the Brahmasutra, Subodhini on the Bhagavata, and Tatvartha-dipa-nibandha with
Prakasha are primary sources for the philosophy, while his sixteen treatises, Shodasha Granthas, set
forth his religious teachings. Among the secondary sources the important ones are Vitthalanatha’s
Vidvan-mandana, Purushottama’s Prasthana Ratnakara, Gopesvara’s Bhakti-martanda, Giridhara’s
Shuddhadvaita-martanda, and Balakrishna’s Prameya Ratnarnava, other works that elucidate the
finer points of the philosophical system are Gattulal’s Vedanta Chintamani and Shastri’s
Shuddhadvaita Siddhanta. S. N. Das Gupta in ‘History of Indian Philosophy’ presents a sympathetic
overview of Vallabha’s doctrines.

Anubhashya of Vallabhacharya : This is a commentary on Badarayana’s Brahmasutra. Several

commentaries were written to interpret the philosophy of this seminal work, but Vallabha was
convinced that all earlier interpretations did not represent the true spirit of the work and were more or
less misleading. About the title of his commentary different explanations have been offered, but since
this was not the original title it is not worthwhile here to examine the different views on this subject.
The original title of this work was, according to Vitthalanatha, Tattva-sutra-Bhashya. It is also certain
that the Acharya wrote up to sutra 3-2-34, and the rest of the work was completed by his son. The
work is written in Sanskrit and only lately has been translated into modern languages. In the first
chapter the author states the aim of the work, which is investigation into the nature of Brahman. In the
statements that follow Brahman is said to be the material and efficient cause of the world; the world is
a manifestation of the sata aspect of Brahman, and the souls embody the chita part of Brahman. The
author then goes on to assert that terms like Aditya, Akasha, Prana, Jyoti, Bhuman, Aksharadhama,
and others employed in some of the Upanishads signify Brahman and no other. Brahman is the
Adhara, the support. Eligibility for the attainment of knowledge concerning Brahman is determined by
one’s merit, and not by birth. The author, at the end of the chapter, refutes the contention of the
Samkhya System regarding the first cause. It is pointed out that the Upanishads declare Brahman,
not Prakriti, as the first cause. Both Purusha and Prakriti are derivatives of Brahman. In the second
chapter the theories of rival schools, the Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Pancharatna,
Bauddha and Jaina, are refuted. Purusha and Prakriti of the Samkhya System are likened to the cane
and the blind leading one another to the destination. The atomic theory of the Vaisheshika and the
Nyaya schools is refuted, and also their Asat Karyavada is shown to be fallacious. The word Asat as
found in the Upanishads does not mean “non-existent”. According to Vallabha it means
“unmanifested”. The universe was unrevealed prior to the manifestation. Like prakriti of the samkhya,
the atoms of the Vaisheshikas are devoid of consciousness and cannot by themselves evolve into the
world of the souls. The Buddhist theory is rejected summarily by pointing out that if the world has no
real existence it cannot be a part of our experience. Besides, if external objects have no real
existence, the desire for them is equally unreal. So, to regard desire as the root of human misery is
wrong.

Vallabha then goes on to propound he following principles: non-difference of the effect from the
cause, Brahman’s integrity as unchangeabilities, the manifold attributes and powers of Brahman, the
souls have neither birth or death, their relation to Brahman is that of a part to the whole. In the third
chapter, the sadhana Adhyaya Vallabha dwells on the means of reaching Brahman. This involves
eschatological pronouncement concerning the state of the souls after passing out of the body. The
theory of Karma is invoked while discussing rebirth. The soul, though a part of God, lacks full
knowledge of God and the universe owing to the obscuration or tirobhava of divine excellences. Lack
of true knowledge leads to bondage and misery. There follows a discussion on the nature of God.
God has a form: however, that form is divine. It is manifest as well as non-manifest. In its manifest
swaroopa God is said to be “saakara” and in the non-manifest state the same God is said to be
“nirakara”. So, saakara and nirakara Brahman are all one and the same. Ritual sacrifice and worship,
knowledge, and devotion are different means of reaching God. The fruit of devotion is the partaking of
the bliss which is the essential nature of Brahman. Those who follow the path of devotion are set free
from the bonds of karma. In the last considers their relative merits. He refers to the views of Jaimini
and Badrayana in this regard. Jaimini held that men like Sanaka who valued knowledge most of all
did not, for that reason, desist from performing holy rituals. Badarayana on the other hand asserted
that both the disciplines of action and knowledge should be subordinated to pure loving devotion.
Vallabha concludes his work with a detailed discussion about the nature of devotion that bears fruit in
God’s anugraha or pushti. The pushti devotee sublimates his desires so that all the purusharthas of
life, dharma – artha-kama-moksha, are oriented towards God, The ultimate benefaction, according to
Jaimini, consists in being absorbed in Brahman, according to Audomi it consists in being united with
that consciousness which is part of Brahman, Badarayana believes that the end of a true devotee is
to be enveloped in that beatific bliss which is the very essence of Brahman.

Tattva Dipa Nibandha : This work which highlights Vallabha’s philosophical concepts is written in
Sanskrit in a karika form, and a commentary, Prakasha, written by Vallabha himself, elaborates and
explains the issues raised in it. A part of the work called Shastrartha deals with the Gita and another
called Bhagavatartha deals with the Bhagavata Purana. In the just part Vallabha establishes the
Prasthana Chatushtayi, the four scriptural authorities, he is going to follow in his investigation into the
nature of life, universe and Brahman. The universe, says Vallabha, is God’s work and is, for that
reason, real. He differentiates between the real world, the prapancha, and the unreal world, the
samsara. The emergence and dissolution of the real world depends on God’s own will. The end of
samsara depends on the efforts of the soul either hair. The soul’s consciousness of the divine is
revealed through meditation. The theory that the soul is only a reflection of Brahman in the mirror of
Avidya (nonscience) is rejected out of hand. How can the pure Brahman be reflected in a mirror that is
itself impure ? The maya theory is shown to be untenable. In God’s dispensation of grace, in the
choosing of the souls that are to receive the benediction, God must not be seem arbitrary or partial.
Nor is God responsible for human error and misery. If souls do not abide by the code of conduct given
them by God they must take the consequences. In the section of the Nibandha called Barvanirnaya,
Vallabha deals with problems of Prameya (testimony), Pramana (authority), Sadhana (means) and
Fala (goal). Speaking of means, Vallabha holds that knowledge and devotion are not antagonistic to
each other. However, the efficacy of devotion is greater than that of knowledge, asceticism, penance
and rituals. In the following Bhagavatartha Prakarana, Vallabha explains the philosophy of the
Bhagavata which he considers the most reliable guide to knowledge of the Brahman. Besides
explaining it here, Vallabha made another attempt in his Subodhini. The schemata prepared by him
for the commentary may be set forth as follows : (i) Fitness of listeners and reciters of the Bhagavata,
(ii) Means for God-realization, (iii) Creation, (iv) Souls and their psychic characteristics, (v) God’s
power over Nature and souls, (vi) Grace offered to favoured souls, (vii) Nature of desire, (viii)
Manvantara or dharma, physical, spiritual and divine, (ix) Company of and communication with,
spiritually elevated souls, (x) Nirodha of God’s love-form, (xi) Liberation of Moksha, (xii) Ashraya or
refuge. The liberation aimed at is restoration of the soul to its pristine glory in Brahman.

Subodhini : This is a commentary on the Bhagavata. It is the most popular of Vallabha’s works. In
it Vallabha explains each verse of the first, second, third, tenth and the initial part of the eleventh book
of the Bhagavata. He explains each word not only with reference to etymological meaning but also its
suggestive sense. It is his greatest literary achievement. The height of beauty is reached, in such
parts as the Venu Gita, the Ras Lila and the Brahmana Gita. His poetic sensibility and mystic vision
find the fullest expression here.

We conclude here with Yogi Gopeswara’s assertion that the three fold teachings of Sri Vallabha,
the Adhibhautika, the Adhyatmika, and the Adhidaivika, are best enunciated in Anubhashya, Tattva
Dipa Nibandha and Subodhini, respectively. His other works such as the Shodasha Granthas are
chiefly concerned with instructions to guide devotees on the pushti marga. In these three works of
Vallabhacharya we touch the very heart of Hindu religious philosophy, which is the finest blending of
metaphysics and mysticism.