Upaniṣads · Rudrahṛdaya 41
॥
Devanāgarī
द्वौ सुपर्णौ शरीरेऽस्मिञ्जीवेशाक्ष्यौ सह स्थितौ । तयोर्जीवः फलं भुङ्क्ते कर्मणो न महेश्वरः
Transliteración (IAST)
dvau suparṇau śarīre'smiñjīveśākṣyau saha sthitau | tayorjīvaḥ phalaṃ bhuṅkte karmaṇo na maheśvaraḥ
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
द्वौ सुपर्णौ शरीरे अस्मिन्dvau suparṇau śarīre asmintwo birds in this body
जीव-ईश-अक्ष्यौ सह स्थितौjīva-īśa-akṣyau saha sthitaujīva and lord-eyed, dwelling together
तयोः जीवः फलं भुङ्क्तेtayoḥ jīvaḥ phalaṃ bhuṅkteof these, the jīva tastes the fruit
कर्मणः न महेश्वरःkarmaṇaḥ na maheśvaraḥof deed — not Maheśvara
Traducción
"Two birds in this body — jīva and lord-eyed — dwell together; of these, the jīva tastes the fruit of deed, not Maheśvara."
Versión
097b3760087a · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
Here is the chief verse of all Vedic literature on the soul and God, and it is cited here in a Śaiva book. In the original (Ṛgveda 1.164.20, Muṇḍaka 3.1.1, Śvetāśvatara 4.6) it is said: "two birds, close companions, embrace the same tree; one of them tastes the sweet fruit, the other, without tasting, looks on." Here the verse is recast and made precise: the birds are named jīva and īśa, "soul" and "lord"; and it says directly what is not said in the original: tayor jīvaḥ phalaṃ bhuṅkte karmaṇaḥ na maheśvaraḥ, "of these, the jīva tastes the fruit of deed, not Maheśvara."
Let us examine what stands here, for this verse is the foundation of the whole Vaiṣṇava Vedānta. First: dvau, "two," and the number is dual, which does not exist in English. Not "one bird that appears as two," but two.
Second: saha sthitau, "dwelling together," also dual. They do not replace each other and do not turn into one another: they are on one tree simultaneously. Third, and decisive: one tastes, and not the other. The difference between them is not in position or name, but in what happens to them: one eats and is therefore bound by what is tasted; the other looks, and is free.
This is the argument the Advaitic reading has no way around. If there were one bird, there would be no one to look at the one tasting; and if both were tasting, no one would be free. Rāmānuja and Madhva build everything on this verse; and the Vedānta-sūtra devotes a special discussion to it (1.2.11–12), where it decides directly that these two are the soul and the Supreme.
It is worth noting also the word akṣi, "eye," standing in the name of the second bird: it is named not an agent, but one who looks. The argument from the witness was discussed when reading the Kāṭharudra (8), and here it reaches its full force: a witness is never that which he watches.