underlying reality of the universe. The individualized counterpart to brahman
in the same passage was a ̄tman– that manifestation of brahmanin all beings.
“You are that” (tat tvam asi) says the sage to the pupil to denote the oneness
of the cosmic “self” and the individual “self.” Such a vision became the basis
for monistic thought in certain later Hindu schools including the thought
of the eighth-century CEphilosopherS ́an.kara.
TheMun.d.aka Upanis.adappears to suggest a slightly different vision,
however:
Two birds, companions and friends,
nestle on the very same tree.
One of them eats a tasty fig;
the other, not eating, looks on.Stuck on the very same tree,
one person grieves, deluded
by her who is not the Lord;
But when he sees the other,
the contented Lord – and his majesty –
his grief disappears.When the seer sees that Person,
The golden-coloured, the creator, the Lord,
as the womb of brahman;
Then, shaking off the good and the bad,
the wise man becomes spotless,
and attains the highest identity.^8Herebrahmananda ̄tmanwere like two birds in a tree, brahmanon a higher
branch and a ̄tmanlower; they shared the same quality but appeared to be
two different entities. This vision informed those vaidikaschools which
tended to be more nearly dualistic, possibly including the thought of
Ra ̄ma ̄nuja, the great eleventh-century theologian.
Other ideas found their way into the discourses. There was, for example,
a proto-psychology that emerged. Quite apart from reflections on breath,
self, speech, etc. one finds analogized the relationship between senses,
“mind,” and wisdom. The senses were like horses that run after external
stimuli. The mind (manas) – that with which one thinks and accumulates
knowledge – was like the charioteer who controls the senses and prevents
them from running amok. Yet wisdom (buddhi,jña ̄na, etc.) transcended
mere knowledge. It was the understanding that comes from seeing the truth
about existence – it was liberating, enlightening wisdom.
34 The Early Urban Period