365betÓéÀÖ

The passage Dvasuparna sayuja sakhayau... does not mention identity whereas it clearly states the difference. Here both soul and Brahman are described as two birds abiding in the same tree in the form of physical body. Jiva is described as one who eats the karmaphala whereas Brahman does not. The very fact of eating and non-eating 860 clearly shows the distinction. There even the Advaita interpretation mentions the two birds as soul and Brahman. Vadiraja opines that the mention of two birds as soul and

295 Brahman in the Advaita commentary, ascertains the difference and not the identity. 861 The Advaitins interpret the passage with the help of the Adhyahara of two words as Paramarthika and Vyavaharika. They explain that, in the empirical state, one and the same Brahman eats the fruits of his deeds and in the real state, one and the same Brahman does not eat the fruits of deeds. Thus, the two states as eating and non-eating are taken into account. The opposite nature of these two is discarded by resorting to Adhyahara of above words. Hence, both enjoying and non-enjoying of fruit of deeds seem to be possible with regard to one and the same Brahman. In this way, apparent difference as two is simply empirical and hence is not absolutely real. Whereas, the sense as one and the same, which is Paramarthika is real. The Advaitins hold that difference implied here is only empirical. This interpretation as well as the contention of the Advaitins is not correct. Because, here Adhyahara is not necessary. Generally, Adhyahara is resorted to when the particular passage cannot be interpreted in a cogent manner. 863 Further, there is no ground or any reason to state eating of fruit of deeds is only empirical. Because, 864 the passage Sosnute sarvan kaman saha... declares that

the enjoyment is also there in liberation. And this enjoyment or eating cannot be considered as empirical. 865 It must be Paramarthika. So the enjoyment and the non-enjoyment are both absolutely real. And this proves the real difference between the two. When there is difference between liberated soul and Brahman, there is no need to stress difference in respect of the unliberated or bound souls. Further, if there was no real difference, then, there would not have been in the passage the mention of 'two' by using the dual number as Dva suparna. Because two attributes of one and the same thing do not make it to be consisting of two. A jar, possessing colour and form, cannot be considered as two jars. And also a wife, having courage and beauty, cannot be mentioned as two. In the same way, enjoyment and its absence do not make one and the same as two but convey only two distinct entities. Because 866 of the two attributes one and the same object is not mentioned in dual number. The Bhagavata verse Vidyamayo nitya mukto... clearly establishes the distinction between soul 867 and Brahman. Vadiraja holds that, the inference as Vimatah bhedah paramarthasat... proves the difference. It states that difference is evident as reference is made of the souls, 296

297 liberated afterwards.' And moreover, the illustration also corroborates the proposition that difference is absolutely real like the bliss of liberation. In the passage Dva 868 suparna difference is hinted at on so many grounds. The use of dual number, reference of enjoyment and non-enjoyment and also the usage Anya promise only the distinction beyond doubt. The expressions sakhayau and Sayujau 869 assert that the distinction, hinted at here in the passage, is in respect of nature and not in respect of place and thought that is unity of place and unity of thought. As the passage also deals with the enjoyment of liberation of the liberated souls, it is sure that the difference in 870 nature is taken into account. as brilliant. Brahman is described here It shows that He is superior and master, another soul is inferior and servant. The term 'Sayujau' in the passage implies the Sayujya type of liberation and not the identity. The Sayujya type of liberation indicates soul's presence in close proximity with Brahman always and not the identity between the two. So there is nothing in this passage that could suggest that the difference between soul and Brahman is simply empirical. The view of the Advaita that Vyavaharika Bheda referred to elsewhere, is quoted here is also not tenable since according to the Advaita absolute difference is nowhere declared in the entire scripture. 871

f 298 Brahman, being Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and so on, need not undergo any hardships for his enjoyment. The question of gaining of fresh enjoyment does not arise in His case. He is eternally contented. His activity is for others' sake who are under his control and supervision. Vadiraja cites the example of how God distributed the nector and poison obtained in the churning of milky ocean. Neither he tasted the nectar nor he rejected the poison. This shows that he has nothing to gain or lose with efforts. He dwells in all as the inner controller and without experiencing any fruit of actions. He controls, He is the Impeller and as the soul is the 873 controlled, he is impelled. Since, Thus, this passage also indicates the relation of impelled and impellor. The very fact is being discussed and narrated with illustrations in the Bhagavata, en Gita and in other works. 874 It is explained there that soul eats the fruit of deeds according to his own deeds. Whereas God being unaffected, simply witnesses and controls the soul. The sufferings and others, seen in soul, are not seen in God. Therefore, I soul and Brahman are distinct to each other. 875 Thus the very expression of the passage denotes one or other unique attributes of both of them and establishes difference as its primary import.