In the same light we have to view numerous other passages which set forth the successive emanations proceeding from the first principle.  When, for instance, we meet in the Ka/th/a Up.  I, 3, 10, in the serial enumeration of the forms of existence intervening between the gross material world and the highest Self (the Person), with the ‘avyak/ri/ta,’ the Undeveloped, immediately below the purusha; and when again the Mu/nd/aka Up.  II, 1, 2, speaks of the ‘high Imperishable’ higher than which is the heavenly Person; there is no reason whatever to see in that ‘Undeveloped’ and that ‘high Imperishable’ anything but that real element in Brahman from which, as in the Ramanuja system, the material universe springs by a process of real development.  We must of course render it quite clear to ourselves in what sense the terms ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ have to be understood.  The Upanishads no doubt teach emphatically that the material world does not owe its existence to any principle independent from the Lord like the pradhana of the Sa@nkhyas; the world is nothing but a manifestation of the Lord’s wonderful power, and hence is unsubstantial, if we take the term ‘substance’ in its strict sense.  And, again, everything material is immeasurably inferior in nature to the highest spiritual principle from which it has emanated, and which it now hides from the individual soul.  But neither unsubstantiality nor inferiority of the kind mentioned constitutes unreality in the sense in which the Maya of Sa@nkara is unreal.  According to the latter the whole world is nothing but an erroneous appearance, as unreal as the snake, for which a piece of rope is mistaken by the belated traveller, and disappearing just as the imagined snake does as soon as the light of true knowledge has risen.  But this is certainly not the impression left on the mind by a comprehensive review of the Upanishads which dwells on their general scope, and does not confine itself to the undue urging of what may be implied in some detached passages.  The Upanishads do not call upon us to look upon the whole world as a baseless illusion to be destroyed by knowledge; the great error which they admonish us to relinquish is rather that things have a separate individual existence, and are not tied together by the bond of being all of them effects of Brahman, or Brahman itself.  They do not say that true knowledge sublates this false world, as Sa@nkara says, but that it enables the sage to extricate himself from the world—­the inferior murta rupa of Brahman, to use an expression of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka—­and to become one with Brahman in its highest form.  ‘We are to see everything in Brahman, and Brahman in everything;’ the natural meaning of this is, ’we are to look upon this whole world as a true manifestation of Brahman, as sprung from it and animated by it.’  The mayavadin has indeed appropriated the above saying also, and interpreted it so as to fall in with his theory; but he is able to do so only by perverting its manifest sense.  For him it would be appropriate to say, not that everything we see is in Brahman, but rather that everything we see is out of Brahman, viz. as a false appearance spread over it and hiding it from us.