AVIBHAGADVAITA OF VIJNANABHIKSHU

Vijnanabhikshu has authored a number of treatises belonging to various philosophical

systems, including Vijnanamrtabhasya, a commentary on Badarayana`s Brahmasutras, and

Samkhyaprachanabhashya, a commentary of the Samkhyapravachanasutras. He conceived a

system in which both the world and the individual selves also enjoyed the status of reality and

which accorded due importance to both knowledge and action as means to liberation. He

believed that it is the philosophy of the unreality of the world which was responsible for

man`s alienation from his environment and in order to help him overcome the alienation a

more meaningful relationship of man with his surroundings and fellow-beings was needed.

This is precisely the reason why Vijnanabhikshu took up cudgels against the advocates of

Maya and expounded a system in which the world has been accepted as a real transformation

of Prakrti, the power of the Absolute, and which thus has no place for Maya in the sense in

which it has in the philosophy of Advaita.

Vijnanabhiksu`s system is a peculiar blend of knowledge, yoga and bhakti. Probably it

was the need of the times and it is for this reason that he combined both the non-dualistic

idealism of Sankara and the realistic idealism of Samkhya with the prevailing cult of

devotion. It is his zeal for syncretism that he has welded various philosophical trends of

Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Puranas, etc. into his system of Integral Non-dualism.

Vijnanabhiksu (1550-1623 AD) is the author of many noteworthy philosophical

treatises such as the Sankhyapravacanabhasya and the Vijnamrtabhasya on the Brahmasutras

of Badarayana. He propounded the Vedantic School of Avibhagadvaita (Integral Non-

dualism). According to his philosophy, Brahman is an Integral whole in which Prakrti and

Purusa co-inhere as its real powers. This Avibhagadvaita is much different from the Advaita

of Sri Sankara and the Integral Non-dualism of Sri Aurobindo.

 Vijnanabhiksu disagrees with Sankara’s views with regard to the reality of the

universe. Sankara holds that this world is illusory, whereas, according to Vijnanabhiksu, the

Jagat and the Jivas also have the status of Reality. Vijnanabhiksu advocates the Jnana-karma-

samuccayavada as against Sankara’s famous theory of Jnanadeva tu Kaivalyam (Liberation

through Knowledge only). Vijnanabhiksu holds that Sankara’s Advaita philosophy has

alienated men from their surroundings. Vijnanabhiksu stressed the need for a philosophy that

could help them overcome this alienation and for this he propounded his new school of

thought.

According to Vijnanabhiksu, Liberation is nothing but the destruction of the obstacles

thereof. He explains his theory through the following example: when a Japakusumam

(Hibiscus Flower) is placed near a crystal that is white in colour, the proximity of the flower

makes the crystal appear as red. As the flower is removed, the whiteness of the crystal is

perceived again.

Vijnanabhiksu’s philosophy is an amalgamation of Sankhya, Yoga and Advaita. It

gives importance to Jnana, Karma and Bhakti alike. While Advaita compares the Reality of

the world with that of the Rope-Snake illusion or the Dream experiences, Vijnanabhiksu

believes that the objects of the world are the reflections on the Absolute. When the reflections

of the Vrttis vanish, it does not mean that the objects also lose their existence.

Vijnanabhiksu does not take Vibhaga or Difference as real, since it is caused by

Ajnana. According to him, the relationship between Brahman and the Jivas is one of identity-

in-difference. Brahman and the Jivas are inseparably related to each other in the form of

Amsa and Amsi, as in the case of the rays of the sun.

According to VB, the experience of dream and that of the ‘rope-snake’ etc., are not

absolute unreality but only relative unreality. He also argues that Brahman means also the

Jivas since both are one and the same like the Ghatakasa and the Mahakasa. he says,
however, that the scriptural statements conveying Bheda are more powerful than those

proclaiming identity, and those statements which proclaim the identity of the jivas and

Brahman depict only the non-separate nature of Brahman.

तस्ममादद वविविवेकविमाक्यरूपतयमा भवेदविमाक्यमावनि एवि बलविवनत तवद्विररोधवेनि चमाभवेदविमाक्यमावनि अवविभमागपरतयमा एवि सङरोचनिनीयमावनि।

(वविजमानिमाममृतभमाष्यमद पमृ. 21-22)

Metaphysically, Bhakti has not much significance in VB’s philosophy; but, he accepts it as a

means to the highest realization. He accepts Upasana as an auxiliary means to Liberation, i.e.,

through the purification of the mind.

भमाविनिमाख्यरोपमासनिमावनिष्पत्त्यमा शशुद्धस्य पशुरुषस्य प्रकमृ तवेररवि सविर्वमद ऐश्वियर्यं भवितनीत्यरर्वर्थः। (समासांख्यप्रविचनिभमाष्यमद पमृ.118)

According to him, Bhakti relates one to the Lord through the ‘I’ and ‘thou’

relationship. He combined the Idealism of Sankara and the Realism of Sankhya with the

Bhakti cult. The fact that VB had very much been influenced by the Bhakti cult is evident

from his Bhasyas. In the beginning of Sankhyapravacanabhasya, he says in one of the

benedictory verses: प्रनीयतमासां मरोक्षदरो हररर्थः। (समासांख्यप्रविचनिभमाष्यमद पमृ.2)

In his works, he remarks thus:

सरोऽस्ममानिद बशुवद्धगशुणणर्थः स्वियसां वनिगवदतमानिद स्विमासांशमानिद कमृ पमासमागररो।

दनीनिमानिद मरोचयतशु प्रभशुगशुर्वणमयसां पमाशसां दहसांलनीलयमा।। (यरोगविमावरर्वकमद पमृ. 2)

VB conceived his Avibhagadvaita in the background of the Bhakti cult. (Kanshi Ram:

Integral Non-Dualism, p. 157)

He puts forth a philosophy of Syncretism. According to him, any of the divergent

schools of thought do not contradict one another. If there seems to be any contradiction in

their doctrines, it only means that it is not the main purport of that particular system.
सविमार्ववण दशर्वनिमावनि तमात्पयर्वतर्थः परस्परमद अवविररोधनीनयवेवि। यत्र असांशवे तशु वविररोधर्थः दृश्यतवे तत्र नि तस्य दशर्वनिस्य तमात्पयर्वमद इवत दशर्वनिमानिमामद अवविररोधविमाद एवि

परममारर्वर्थः।। (वविजमानिमाममृतभमाष्यमद उपरोदमातर्थः पमृ.14)

For example, Sankhya philosophy does not admit the existence of God. Looking from

their perspective, this is right because Sankhya philosophy lays stress on the discriminative

knowledge of Prakrti and Purusa, and, the approval or denial of God does not come under the

purview of Sankhya.

At the same time, he himself has made statements contradictory to this view. In

Sankhyapravacanabhasya, he says that the Atmatva of the Purusas is contradictory to the

theory of Brahmamimamsa

समासांख्यवसद्धपशुरुषमाणमामद आत्मत्विसां तशु बहमनीममासांसयमा बमाधयतवे एवि। (समासांख्यप्रविचनिभमाष्यमद पमृ.6)

In the very previous sentence, he says that Vedanta accepts the plurality of the souls.

बहमनीममासांसमायमामवप असांशरो निमानिमावयपदवेशमातद इत्यमावदससत्रजमातणर्थः जनीविमात्मबहह त्विस्यणवि वनिणर्वयमातद। (समासांख्यप्रविचनिभमाष्यमद पमृ.6)

He attempts to surmount this self-contradiction by stating that the Scriptures proclaim

the plurality of the Self at the Vyavaharika level and the Non-duality of the same at the

Paramarthika level.

एतवेनि शशुवतस्ममृवतप्रवसद्धयरोर्थः निमानिमात्म-एकमात्मत्वियरोर्थः वयमाविहमाररकपमारममावरर्वकभवेदवेनिमावविररोध इवत। (समासांख्यप्रविचनिभमाष्यमद पमृ.6)

Thus, notwithstanding all the internal contradictions, the philosophical contributions

of Vijnanabhiksu, especially for the Sankhya and Vedanta Schools of thought are much

valuable.

References

1. Mukund sastri: ed. Brahmasutravijnanamrtabhasya of Vijnanabhiksu,

Chowkhamba sanskrit Siries Varanasi.

2. Pt. Dhumdhiraja Sastri: ed. Samkhyadarsanam with Samkhyapravachanabhashya of

Vijnanabhiksu, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Siries Varanasi.

3. Kanshi Ram: Integral Non-Dualism, MLBD, Delhi, 1995

Dr. T. G. Sreekumar

Associate Professor

Dept. Of Vedanta

Sree Sankaracharya

University of Sanskrit

Kalady