[Footnote 57:  Or C[=a]r[=i]raka-m[=i]m[=a]msa, or
     Brahma-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (m[=i]m[=a][=m.]sa, reflexion,
     philosophy).]

     [Footnote 58:  Kapila’s system, usually known as the
     S[=a]nkhya.]

     [Footnote 59:  And attributed to Pata[=n.]jali.  Compare
     Deussen, System des Ved[=a]nta, p. 20.]

     [Footnote 60:  Born In 788.  But some scholars refer him to
     the seventh century.  See IA. xiii. 95; xvi. 41.  His name, a
     title of Civa, indicates his nominal sect.]

     [Footnote 61:  For the meaning of Ved[=a]nta (whether ’end of
     Veda,’ or ‘goal of Veda’) compare Deussen, loc. cit. p. 3,
     note (above, p. 253, note).]

[Footnote 62:  The Supreme Spirit or All-Spirit is either purely non-dualistic or qualifiedly non-dualistic; in the latter event he is, says the sectary, identical with Vishnu, who may be represented either by Krishna or R[=a]ma (sub-sects).  Pure non-duality (unconditioned [=a]tm[=a]) was taught by Cankara.]

[Footnote 63:  Gough, Philosophy of the Upanishads..  Compare Williams, loc. cit.  In our own view the unsystematic Upanishads teach both doctrines (above, p. 228, note).]

[Footnote 64:  Before K[=a]m[=a]nuja it was taught by C[=a]ndilya that brahma (and the individual spirit) was conditioned, a doctrine supposed to be that of the old Bh[=a]gavatas or P[=a][.n]car[=a]tras; but this is quite uncertain.  The C[=a]ndilyan chapter of the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad (above, p. 221) may be thus interpreted, vis, that the (conditioned) individual spirit is identical with brahma.]

     [Footnote 65:  Thibaut, Introduction to the Ved[=a]nta
     S[=u]tras, SBE.  XXXIV. p.  XXXI; Deussen, System des
     Ved[=a]nta, p.469.]

     [Footnote 66:  Philosophical illusion, m[=a]n[=a], appears
     first in late Upanishads.]

[Footnote 67:  The author of the Dabist[=a]n (seventeenth century) tells a Berkeleyan story in regard to Cankara’s doctrine of illusion.  His enemies wished to test his belief in his own philosophy; so they drove an elephant at him, on which the philosopher ran away.  “Ho!” they jeered, “Did you not maintain that all was a mere illusion?  Then an elephant is illusion.  Yet you take to flight before it.”  “Yes,” replied the philosopher, “all is illusion; there was no elephant, and there was no flight” (II. 4).]

     [Footnote 68:  The Sm[=a]rta (orthodox) Brahman believes, on
     the other hand, that Vishnu, Civa, and Brahm[=a] are all
     mere forms of the Supreme [=A]lm[=a].]

     [Footnote 69:  If Mohammed were regarded as one with Allah
     there would be an Occidental parallel to the Krishna and
     R[=a]ma sects.]