new one is invested with the
subtle body; hence section 13 cannot be taken as saying what it clearly
does say, viz. that at death the different organs pass into the
different elements, but as merely indicating that the organs are
abandoned by the divinities which, during lifetime, presided over them!

The whole third adhyaya indeed of the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka affords ample
proof of the artificial character of /S/a@nkara's attempts to show that
the teaching of the Upanishads follows a definite system. The eighth
brahma/n/a, for instance, is said to convey the doctrine of the highest
non-related Brahman, while the preceding brahma/n/as had treated only of
I/s/vara in his various aspects. But, as a matter of fact, brahma/n/a 8,
after having, in section 8, represented Brahman as destitute of all
qualities, proceeds, in the next section, to describe that very same
Brahman as the ruler of the world, 'By the command of that Imperishable
sun and moon stand apart,' &c.; a clear indication that the author of
the Upanishad does not distinguish a higher and lower Brahman
in--/S/a@nkara's sense.--The preceding brahma/n/a (7) treats of the
antaryamin, i.e. Brahman viewed as the internal ruler of everything.
This, according to /S/a@nkara, is the lower form of Brahman called
I/s/vara; but we observe that the antaryamin as well as the so-called
highest Brahman described in section 8 is, at the termination of the two
sections, characterised by means of the very same terms (7, 23: Unseen
but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c. There is no other seer but he,
there is no other hearer but he, &c.; and 8, 11: That Brahman is unseen
but seeing, unheard but hearing, &c. There is nothing that sees but it,
nothing that hears but it, &c.).--Nothing can be clearer than that all
these sections aim at describing one and the same being, and know
nothing of the distinctions made by the developed Vedanta, however valid
the latter may be from a purely philosophic point of view.

We may refer to one more similar instance from the Chandogya Upanishad.
We there meet in III, 14 with one of the most famous vidyas describing
the nature of Brahman, called after its reputed author the
Sa/nd/ilya-vidya. This small vidya is decidedly one of the finest and
most characteristic texts; it would be difficult to point out another
passage setting forth with greater force and eloquence and in an equally
short compass the central doctrine of the Upanishads. Yet this text,
whic