Jagat or Universe

It was a great task before Śaṅkarācārya to reconcile the Upaniṣadic statements about creations, taken in literal sense, with those denying the world of multiplicity. Throughout the Upaniṣads, the description of Brahman as really devoid of all assignable marks becomes intelligible of His creations is real. The teachings about the disappearance of all multiplicity in the realisation of Brahman can not also be understood. The dawn of the knowledge of Reality can dispel only the unreal appearings as real, not what in really real. This idea furnishes Śaṅkara’s mind with a clue to the mystery of the world. If the world is a mere appearance, like an object in dream or illusion then the present appearance of the world and its disappearance on the knowledge of Reality become intelligible. This reconciliation has been suggested by Upaniṣads also. Even in Ṛgveda (6.47.18) the one Indra (God) is said to appear in many forms through powers of creating illusion (Māya). The Bṛhadaranyaka (2.5.19) also accepts this. The Śvetāśvetāra clearly states that the origin (pṛakrti) of the world lies in the magical power (Māya) of god.

Maṇḍana Miśra says that not being able to show or establish the distinctiveness of Brahman or Jīva by reasoning. He again resorts to sruti. He adds that there is an Upaniṣadic verse, ‘There are two birds of beautiful plumage’, unified in friendship through eternity, occupying the same tree. Of them, one eats the fruits of the tree, while the other merely looks on without eating’. Hear the two birds are the Jīva and Brahman, and the śṛuti stresses their difference. In this way śṛuti contradicts the idea of their unity you say, is asserted by other Vedic sentences.

Śaṅkara argues that there are many śṛutīs condemning the perception of diversity as: He who sees only diversity here, goes from death to death etc. In against these quoting a sentence pertaining to facts known even otherwise, through perception etc. It will not weaken the śṛuti passages that declare the unity of existence. They describe only the apparent nature, the wrong notions of things. They all are seen in ignorance like silver and nacre. A Vedic sentence must give you some knowledge unattainable through other means like perception, they must prompt you to some fruitful action. But others are Arthavādās, figures of speech and exaggerations. Whose meaning is not they purport to say. This passage you quoted is only an Arthavāda. There are many such passages in the Veda but they are dualistic import.

Maṇḍana Miśra says that Smṛti texts are attributed to great saints and seers and are based on Vedic texts, considered valid. For example, take the passage “Kṣetrajña is myself; in the Gīta. Even so a truth given by perception, if it is supported by a Vedic text has to be given the same validity.

The difference between the Īśvara and Jīva is given in our intuitive and this is supported by the Vedic text quoted. Its validity cannot be questioned. Śaṅkara says that what the Veda supports is not all the Smṛtis, but the meaning of smriti passage which is identical with it. ‘Know the Kṣetrajña to be myself is identical in meaning with ‘Tat Tvam Asi’^[1]. This unique meaning cannot be got through any other means of knowledge except the Vedic passge, so far as the Gīta passage reiterates this unique meaning, it is relevant in the vedic texts. This is not the case with regard to the sentence you have quoted about ‘The two birds, sitting on the self tree’. The knowledge of difference between Īśvara and the Jīva had even by the ignorant.^[2] No Veda is required for it. Only that is Veda which reveals new knowledge unattainable. Its function is to reiterate knowledge obtained in other ways. Śaṅkara says that Maṇḍana had mis-understood the meaning of the passage, ‘two birds of beautiful plumage’ etc. The right interpretation is that the passage is not meant to show the difference between Īśvara and Jīva. But to distinguish Īśvara from the sattva or the Buddhi or intellect. It is the Buddhi that undergoes the enjoyements and sufferings born of Karma, and the passage seeks to distinguish that Buddhi from Īśvara and assert His freedom from Saṃsara.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Mādhava Vidyāraṇya, Śrīmad Śaṅkara Digvijaya, (text in Sanskrit with Tamil Translation and Notes), Ed., Paṇḍit N.S Ananadakrishna Sastri, VII. 71

[2]:

Ibid.,