[Footnote 763:  It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that there has been endless discussion as to the sense and manner in which the soul is God.]

[Footnote 764:  Brihad Aran.  IV. 4. 6; Ib. I. iv. 10.  “I am Brahman.”]

[Footnote 765:  See above Book II. chaps.  V and VI.]

[Footnote 766:  Chand.  Up.  III. 14.]

[Footnote 767:  Chand.  Up.  VI.]

[Footnote 768:  See Deussen, Philosophy of the Upanishads.]

[Footnote 769:  Ato’nyad artam.  Brihad Ar.  III. several times.]

[Footnote 770:  Maitrayana.  Brah.  Upanishad, VI. 20.  “Having seen his own self as The Self he becomes selfless, and because he is selfless he is without limit, without cause, absorbed in thought.”]

[Footnote 771:  There is nothing to fix the date of this work except that Kumarila in commenting on it in the eighth century treats it as old and authoritative.  It was perhaps composed in the early Gupta period.]

[Footnote 772:  Keith in J.R.A.S. 1907, p. 492 says it is becoming more and more probable that Badarayana cannot be dated after the Christian era.  Jacobi in J.A.O.S. 1911, p. 29 concludes that the Brahma-sutras were composed between 200 and 450 A.D.]

[Footnote 773:  Such attempts must have begun early.  The Maitrayana Upanishad (II. 3) talks of Sarvopanishadvidya, the science of all the Upanishads.]

[Footnote 774:  See above, p. 207 ff.]

[Footnote 775:  The same distinction occurs in the works of Meister Eckhart ({~DAGGER~} 1327 A.D.) who in many ways approximates to Indian thought, both Buddhist and Vedantist.  He makes a distinction between the Godhead and God.  The Godhead is the revealer but unrevealed:  it is described as “wordless” (Yajnavalkya’s neti, neti), “the nameless nothing,” “the immoveable rest.”  But God is the manifestation of the Godhead, the uttered word.  “All that is in the Godhead is one.  Therefore we can say nothing.  He is above all names, above all nature.  God works, so doeth not the Godhead.  Therein are they distinguished, in working and in not working.  The end of all things is the hidden darkness of the eternal Godhead, unknown and never to be known.”  (Quoted by Rufus Jones, Studies in Mystical Religion, p. 225.) It may be doubted if Sankara’s distinction between the Higher and Lower Brahman is to be found in the Upanishads but it is probably the best means of harmonizing the discrepancies in those works which Indian theologians feel bound to explain away.]

[Footnote 776:  Vedanta sutras, II. 1. 32-3, and Sankara’s commentary, S.B.E. vol.  XXXIV. pp. 356-7.  Ramanuja holds a similar view and it is very common in India, e.g. Vishnu Pur.  I. chap. 2.]

[Footnote 777:  See too a remarkable passage in his comment on Brahma-sutras, II. 1. 23.  “As soon as the consciousness of non-difference arises in us, the transmigratory state of the individual soul and the creative quality of Brahman vanish at once, the whole phenomenon of plurality which springs from wrong knowledge being sublated by perfect knowledge and what becomes then of the creation and the faults of not doing what is beneficial and the like?”]