[Footnote 185:  Chandogya Upanishad VI.]

[Footnote 186:  In the language of the Upanishads the Atman is often called simply Tat or it.]

[Footnote 187:  I.e. the difference between clay and pots, etc. made of clay.]

[Footnote 188:  Yet the contrary proposition is maintained in this same Upanishad (III. 19. 1), in the Taittiriya Upanishad (II. 8) and elsewhere.  The reason of these divergent statements is of course the difficulty of distinguishing pure Being without attributes from not Being.]

[Footnote 189:  The word union is a convenient but not wholly accurate term which covers several theories.  The Upanishads sometimes speak of the union of the soul with Brahman or its absorption in Brahman (e.g. Maitr.  Up.  VI. 22, Sayujyatvam and asabde nidhanam eti) but the soul is more frequently stated to be Brahman or a part of Brahman and its task is not to effect any act of union but simply to know its own nature.  This knowledge is in itself emancipation.  The well-known simile which compares the soul to a river flowing into the sea is found in the Upanishads (Chand.  VI. 10. 1, Mund.  III. 2, Prasna, VI. 5) but Sankara (on Brahma S. I. iv. 21-22) evidently feels uneasy about it.  From his point of view the soul is not so much a river as a bay which is the sea, if the landscape can be seen properly.]

[Footnote 190:  The Mandukya Up. calls the fourth state ekatmapratyayasara, founded solely on the certainty of its own self and Gaudapada says that in it there awakes the eternal which neither dreams nor sleeps. (Kar.  I. 15.  See also III. 34 and 36.)]

[Footnote 191:  Br.-Aranyaka, IV. 3. 33.]

[Footnote 192:  Cf.  Bradley, Appearance and Reality, p. 244.  “The perfect ... means the identity of idea and existence, attended also by pleasure.”]

[Footnote 193:  Tait.  Up.  II. 1-9.  See too ib.  III. 6.]

[Footnote 194:  Br.-Aran.  III. 8. 10.  See too VI. 2.15, speaking of those who in the forest worship the truth with faith.]

[Footnote 195:  Chandog.  Up.  IV. 10. 5.]

[Footnote 196:  It occurs Katha.  Up.  II. v. 13, 15, also in the Svetasvatara and Mundaka Upanishads and there are similar words in the Bhagavad-gita.  “This is that” means that the individual soul is the same as Brahman.]

[Footnote 197:  The Nrisimhottaratapaniya Up.  I. says that Isvara is swallowed up in the Turiya.]

[Footnote 198:  But still ancient and perhaps anterior to the Christian era.]

[Footnote 199:  Svet.  Up.  VI. 7.]

[Footnote 200:  Svet.  Up.  IV. 3.  Max Mueller’s translation.  The commentary attributed to Sankara explains nilah patangah as bhramarah but Deussen seems to think it means a bird.]

[Footnote 201:  Chand.  Up. vi. 14. 1.  Sat.  Brah. viii. 1. 4. 10.]

[Footnote 202:  The Brahmans are even called low-born as compared with Kshatriyas and in the Ambattha Sutta (Dig.  Nik. iii.) the Buddha demonstrates to a Brahman who boasts of his caste that the usages of Hindu society prove that “the Kshatriyas are higher and the Brahmans lower,” seeing that the child of a mixed union between the castes is accepted by the Brahmans as one of themselves but not by the Kshatriyas, because he is not of pure descent.]