There arises now the further question whether sectarian Vishnuism be the foisting of Krishnaism upon a dummy Vishnu.  We think that, stated in this way, such scarcely can have been the case.  Neither of the great sects is professedly of priestly origin, but each, like other sects, claims Vedic authority, and finds Brahmanical support.  We have said that Vishnu is raised to his position without ictic suddenness.  He is always a god of mystic character, in short, a god for philosophy to work upon.  He is recognized as the highest god in one of the oldest Upanishads.  And it is with the philosopher’s Vishnu that Krishna is identified.  Krishna, the real V[=a]sudeva (for a false V[=a]sudeva is known also in the epic), is the god of a local cult.  How did he originate?  The king of serpents is called Krishna, ‘the black,’ and Vishnu reposes upon Cesha Ananta, the world-snake; but a more historical character than this can be claimed for Krishna.  This god-man must be the same with the character mentioned in the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad, 3. 17. 6.  One may notice the similarities between this Krishna and him of the epic cult.  Krishna, son of Devak[=i], was taught by his teacher, Ghora [=A]ngirasa, that sacrifice may be performed without objective means; that generosity, kindness, and other moral traits are the real signs of sacrifice; and it is then said:  “The priest Ghora [=A]ngirasa having said this to Krishna, the son of Devak[=i]—­and the latter was thereby freed from (thirst) desire—­said:  “When a man is about to die let him resort to this triad:  ‘the imperishable art thou,’ ‘the unmoved art thou,’ ‘breath’s firmness art thou’; in regard to which are these two verses in the Rig-Veda:[83] ’till they see the light of the old seed which is kindled in the sky,’ and ’perceiving above the darkness the higher light, the sun, god among gods, we come to the highest light.’” Krishna thus learned the abolition of sacrifice, and the worship of the sun, the highest light (Vishnu), as true being—­for this is the meaning of the philosophical passage taken with its context.  Kings and priests discuss philosophy together in this period,[84] and it would conform to later tradition to see in the pupil the son of a king.  It is, moreover, significant that the priest, Ghora [=A]ngirasa, is named specially as priest of the sun-god elsewhere (K[=a]ush.  Br. 30. 6), as well as that Krishna [=A]ngirasa is also the name of a teacher.  It is said in this same Upanishad (3. 1. 1) that the sun is the honey, delight, of the gods; and this chapter is a meditation on the sun,[85] of which the dark (k[r.][s.][n.]a) form is that which comes from the Itih[=a]sas and Pur[=a]nas, the fore-runners of the epic (3. 4. 3).  This is taught as a brahma-upanishad, a teaching of the absolute, and it is interesting to see that it is handed down through Brahm[=a], Praj[=a]pati, and Manu, exactly as Krishna says in the Divine Song that his own doctrine has been promulgated; while (it is said further) for him that knows the doctrine ‘there is day,’ his sun never sets (3. 11. 3-4).  It is a doctrine to be communicated only to the eldest son or a good student, and to no one else (ib. 5), i.e., it was new, esoteric, and of vital importance.  Here, too, one finds Sanatkum[=a]ra, the ‘ever young,’ as Skanda,[86] yet as an earthly student also (7. 1; 26. 2), just like Krishna.