The Four Vyuhas in Advaita Vedanta

—By Reddit user Kzhkd235

This write up is going to observe how Madhusudana Sarasvati, a 17th century Advaita
philosopher and devotee of Lord Krishna, integrates the concept of the four emanations of
Pancaratra theology with the atmachatusthaya of Advaita Vedanta, and in the process
reconciles Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Saktism and even ekajivavada.

Disclaimer: This post contains a lot of terminology and presupposes that the reader is
acquainted with a rough idea of Advaita ideas. If not, I highly suggest that you read about
the doctrines of the different Advaita sub-schools, and try to understand how they differ
from one another in their philosophical approach.

The four vyuhas in Vaishnava theology

According to the Pancaratra school, Narayana, the Supreme Being, undergoes a series of
emanations to bring forth four beings termed vyuhas, each tasked with a particular
function. These are Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumana, and Anirrudha. Each emanation
is deemed equal to Narayana Himself, for they possess the same six attributes (omniscience,
power, potency, lordship, virtue and self-sufficiency). Vasudeva is the all pervasive aspect of
God, Sankarshana is the jiva, Pradyumna is the mind, and Anirrudha is the ego. Narayana’s
being is not exhausted post emanation, in other words He does not undergo any
depreciation or change even after issuing forth these beings [1].

Shankaracharya's criticism of the four vyuhas

Shankaracharya, in his commentary to the Brahma Sutras 2.4.42- 45, notes two
interpretations of the vyuha doctrine among the Bhagavatha school and gives reasons for
why both are not admissible. The first interpretation envisions the being Sankarshana as
the literal material embodiment of jivahood. This view is untenable, for the origination of
Sankarshana implies the origination of the jiva, which is not possible for the jiva is said to
be beginning-less (Gita 15.19).

The second approach, where the vyuhas are imagined to be the presiding deities of the
organs rather than their material cause, is refuted on the grounds that multiple equipotent
supreme beings cannot exist.

"Do you, in the first place, mean to say that the four individual Lords, Vasudeva, and so on,
have the same attributes, but do not constitute one and the same Self? If so, you commit the
fault of uselessly assuming more than one Lord, while all the work of the Lord can be done by
one."

Since Brahman is considered to be part-less, He is indivisible. If the oppposite were to be

true, then it would imply that there are two Brahmans, contradicting the premise of Shruti.

Other objections that Shankaracharya raises includes the notion that the cause of a
particular object should logically exercise some superiority over its effect, and the lack of
rational necessity to limit the number of emanations specifically to four.

Later scholars, including Madhusudana accept this criticism, and unanimously agree that
this particular description of the vyuhas cannot be true.

The four states of the Atman

Setting the vyuha theory aside, let us focus our attention to the atmachatusthaya theory.

According to Advaita metaphysics, avidya/maya is the material cause of the world and has
its locus in Atman. This avidya exists in three different states—unmanifest (avyakta), subtle
(amurta) and gross (murta). Advaita also posits the existence of three bodies for each
creature (jiva) which correspond to these three states.

The **gross body** refers to the physical body of tangible matter, which harbours our
biological organs. It is furnished out of murta.

The **subtle body** is the totality of the psychic faculties such as mind, intellect, ego,
memory and the sense organs. It is non-tangible in nature, permanent, and serves as the
conduit for the transmigration of the jiva. It is furnished out of amurta.

The **causal body**, is constituted of pure unmanifest avidya, and is the body which we
comprehend during deep sleep. It is furnished out of avyakta.

Each body is illuminated by the consciousness of the Atman to equal degrees. The
consciousness of Atman, limited by the gross body is known as **Vaishvanara**. This is the
state of conditioned awareness which jivas experience when they are awake, that is, the
awareness through which one comprehends the external world of persistent forms and
empirical reality. The consciousness which is limited by the subtle body is known as
**Taijasa**, and this is the state of awareness which is experienced when having dreams.
Taijasa is also present during the waking state in the form of our inward sense of intuition
and imagination. When both the subtle body and the gross body lies dormant during deep
sleep, consciousness persists as the **Prajna**. This Prajna is identical to the Antaryami or
the inner controller of the jiva.

The Vedas also refer to beings known as Virat, Hiranyagarbha and Ishvara. Ishvara as you
might already know is the Surpeme Lord who has avyakta as His limiting adjunct.
Hiranyagarbha is the creator of the gross elements who has amurta as his limiting adjunct
while murta is the limiting adjunct for Virat, the being who governs the physical universe. It
can be deduced, that the entities known as Vaishwanara, Taijasa and Prajna, can be
conceived as components (vyasti) of Virat, Hiranyagarbha and Ishvara respectively [3].

Pratibimbavada

Madhusudhana relies heavily on the theory of reflection of the Vivarana school to explain
his theology. According to its proponents, the jiva exists as a reflection (pratibimba) of the

 Self in the antahkarana (which itself is a transformation of avidya), while Ishvara is the Self
which acts as the prototype or object for the reflection. The consciousness which persists
through both object and reflection is termed the Sakshi (witness).

Being the object of avidya, Ishvara is untouched by its defects, just as the Sun is not tainted
by its image in a pool of muddy water. On the other hand, the jiva, being the reflection of
consciousness (cidabhasa) in avidya, is subjected to ignorance. In essence, both Ishvara and
the jiva are the same consciousness, and since avidya is unreal, any distinction between
them is presumed to be temporary.

The difference between the pratibimbavada of the Vivarana school and abhasavada of the
Vartika school, is that pratibimbavada accepts that Ishvara and jiva are real yet sublatable
entities, whereas abhasavada considers them to be mere semblances that have no
ontological value. This is important for Madhusudana, as it validates his devtional approach
to Advaita.[4]

Madhusudhana’s conception of the four vyuhas

According to Madhusudana, Pure Consciousness, devoid of any limitation, which acts as the
object of avyakta, is known as Vasudeva. This Vasudeva is the Supreme Being who in
essence is unqualified and devoid of attributes. Vasudeva is Ishvara who comes to control
*mmaya by pure illumination and is the saviour of all creatures. When Ishvara illuminates
maya, it endows it with activity and causes it to bring forth the observable universe.
Because maya in its state of avyaktah contains within itself the names and forms of all
things within existence, Ishvara is omniscient, and as *maya* is the instrument of Ishvara’s
agency, Ishvara is also omnipotent. Therefore, Ishvara's attributes are defined in relation to
maya.

The image of Vasudeva in avyakta is termed Sankarshana. Since avyakta is qualified by

three gunas, Sankarshana exists as Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra respectively, as well in
female forms like Saraswati, Lakshmi and Gauri [5]. The Self limited by the subtle elements
is called Pradyumna and is identified with the entity known as Hiranyagarbha, the creator
of the gross elements. Aniruddha is the Self which is reflected in the gross elements,
otherwise known as Virat.

These four states of Ishvara are equated to the four states of the Atman following the
vyasti-samasti logic. Therefore Vasudeva is pure Atman, Sankarshana is the Prajna,
Pradyumna is Taijasa and Aniruddha is Vaishvanara. [6]

According to Madhusudana, the avataras such as Rama and Krishna, are not manifestations
of Vishnu of the Trimurti, but instead, they are illusory forms of Vasudeva Himself. This fits
in nicely with Madhusudana’s choice of Krishna as his ishtadevata.

It must be admitted that Madhusudana was not the first Advaitin to compare the four
vyuhas to the four states of Atman. Sridharasvamin, the 13th century commentator of the
Bhagavatha Purana, shares a similar view and it is speculated that Madhusudana could
have been inspired by his model.

 “This Lord is the form of Brahmä, Vishnu, and Shiva by distinctions within the reflection that
is materiality distinguished by one or another quality of nature since materiality, made into an
imposed property, is the three qualities of nature." The original, however, is the supreme Lord,
who lacks imposed properties, who is Brahman, and called the original (bimba) Narayana, or
Shri Krishna. This is known by the convention of words. He is named by the words Shiva, and
so on in the Sivapurana."

—Bhavartha Dipika Prakasha 1.1.1

Conclusion

Madhusudana argues that the four vyuhas of Pancharatra Agama should not be seen as
parts of Brahman, but as limitations of Brahman in successive limiting adjuncts. Brahman
devoid of any limitation is known as Vasudeva, Brahman limited by avyakta is Sankarshana,
Brahman limited by amurta is Pradyumna, and Brahman limited by murta is Aniruddha.
Sankarshana, by virtue of being conditioned by the three gunas, exists as the Trimurthi and
Tridevi respectively. Pradyumna is identical to the being known as Hiranyagarbha, and is
the entity responsible for the creation of the gross elements. Annirudha, equated to the Self
illuminating the gross elements.

Notes:-

[1] This scheme of emanation is similar to that of Neoplatonist metaphysics where the One
issues forth the Nous and the Psyche. The One does not undergo any change or
depreciation in its quantity post emanation. Similarly, the substantial integrity of Narayana
remains unaltered even after producing the vyuhas from itself. Unlike Plotinus however,
each emanation possesses identical qualifications as the source akin to the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity where God is said to be three equal persons in one essence
(*homouesia*).

[2] The word *upadhi* in sanksrit is often translated as limiting adjunct. 'Limiting' in the
sense that it has the property to capture the essence of the Atman in itself, and 'adjunct' to
distinguish it from the Atman. For example the Brahman associated with the upadhi of
Maya is known as Ishvara, while Brahman associated with the upadhi of Buddhi (intellect)
is called the jiva.

[3] The relation of part and whole (vaysthi and samasthi) is derived from the Mandukya
Upanishad Bhashya of Adi Shankaracharya. The individual soul (*Adhyatman*) is related
to the presiding deity of the individual (*Adhideva*) as a part of the larger whole. Now this
does not imply that the one Self is divisible, it merely appears so due to the difference in
their respective limiting adjuncts.

[4] Now it should be noted that this is the standard interpretation of Pratibimbavada given
by Prakasatman and the one which Madhusudana approves of. Sarvajnantman, in his
Samkshepa Sharirika, proposes an alternative view, where both the jiva and Ishvara are
considered reflections of Brahman in avidya.

 [5] Compare the notion of Sankarshana with the Logos of Abrahamic philosophy. Philo
Judaeus, an Alexandrian Hellenised Jew who was a contemporary of Jesus, adopted the
notion of the Logos from Heraclitus to reconcile God’s utter transcendence with His
providential imminence in Creation. According to Philo, the Logos was the intermediary
principal that connected the world of the divine with that of the mundane. Philo equated
this Logos with the demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus, who forged the world of imperfect matter
from perfect forms, which Philo conceived as the contents of God’s intellect. Philo eulogised
the Logos as the “Angel of the Lord”, “the shadow of God”, “the First Born Son of God” and
even “The Second God”. In some sense, Sankarshana can be considered the Logos of
Vasudeva, the instrument through which Vasudeva becomes imminent and personal in
creation.

[6] Interestingly, in Madhusudana’s version of ekajivavada, the jiva is regarded as the

material cause of the physical universe through its mere sight (*drsya*). Since the
scriptures describe Hiranyagarbha as the creator of the gross elements, Madhusudana
equates this ekajiva with Hiranyagarbha, calling him the *mukhya-jiva*. All other jivas are
considered to be mere semblances (*jiavabhasa*). What makes Madhusudana's version of
ekajivavada unique, is its involvement of Ishvara. The one jiva is still regarded as the
reflection of Ishvara in nescience when it exists in subtle state. Ishvara, avidya, the jiva and
the sakshi, are outside the jiva's creative activity. The jiva is restricted to only creating the
physical universe of gross matter through avidya's property of vikshepa (projection).

**Sources:-**

[https://researchmap.jp/T-Manabe/published\_papers/23055990/attachment\_file.pdf]
(https://researchmap.jp/T-Manabe/published_papers/23055990/attachment_file.pdf)

[https://researchmap.jp/T-Manabe/published\_papers/12903440/attachment\_file.pdf]
(https://researchmap.jp/T-Manabe/published_papers/12903440/attachment_file.pdf)

[https://researchmap.jp/T-Manabe/published\_papers/23055993](https://
researchmap.jp/T-Manabe/published_papers/23055993)

[https://archive.org/details/
AdvaitaVedantaAndVaisnavismThePhilosophyOfMadhusudanaSaraswatiSanjuktaGuptaSunn
y](https://archive.org/details/
AdvaitaVedantaAndVaisnavismThePhilosophyOfMadhusudanaSaraswatiSanjuktaGuptaSunn
y)