alluded to before, has indeed to be kept in view here also.  Certain texts of the Upanishads describe the soul’s going upwards, on the path of the gods, to the world of Brahman, where it dwells for unnumbered years, i.e. for ever.  Those texts, as a type of which we may take, the passage Kaushit.  Up.  I—­the fundamental text of the Ramanujas concerning the soul’s fate after death—­belong to an earlier stage of philosophic development; they manifestly ascribe to the soul a continued individual existence.  But mixed with texts of this class there are others in which the final absolute identification of the individual Self with the universal Self is indicated in terms of unmistakable plainness.  ’He who knows Brahman and becomes Brahman;’ ’he who knows Brahman becomes all this;’ ’as the flowing rivers disappear in the sea losing their name and form, thus a wise man goes to the divine person.’  And if we look to the whole, to the prevailing spirit of the Upanishads, we may call the doctrine embodied in passages of the latter nature the doctrine of the Upanishads.  It is, moreover, supported by the frequently and clearly stated theory of the individual souls being merged in Brahman in the state of deep dreamless sleep.

It is much more difficult to indicate the precise teaching of the Upanishads concerning the original relation of the individual soul to the highest Self, although there can be no doubt that it has to be viewed as proceeding from the latter, and somehow forming a part of it.  Negatively we are entitled to say that the doctrine, according to which the soul is merely brahma bhrantam or brahma mayopadhikam, is in no way countenanced by the majority of the passages bearing on the question.  If the emission of the elements, described in the Chandogya and referred to above, is a real process—­of which we saw no reason to doubt—­the jiva atman with which the highest Self enters into the emitted elements is equally real, a true part or emanation of Brahman itself.

After having in this way shortly reviewed the chief elements of Vedantic doctrine according to the Upanishads, we may briefly consider Sa@nkara’s system and mode of interpretation—­with whose details we had frequent opportunities of finding fault—­as a whole.  It has been said before that the task of reducing the teaching of the whole of the Upanishads to a system consistent and free from contradictions is an intrinsically impossible one.  But the task once being given, we are quite ready to admit that Sa@nkara’s system is most probably the best which can be devised.  While unable to allow that the Upanishads recognise a lower and higher knowledge of Brahman, in fact the distinction of a lower and higher Brahman, we yet acknowledge that the adoption of that distinction furnishes the interpreter with an instrument of extraordinary power for reducing to an orderly whole the heterogeneous material presented by the old theosophic treatises.  This becomes