assages cited above, notably Brihad [=A]ran., i. 5. 20 (_sa
eva[.m]vit sarve[s.][=a]m bh[=u]t[=a]n[=a]m [=a]tm[=a] bhavati,
Yath[=a] i[s.][=a] devat[=a]ivam sa_); 'he that knows this becomes the
_[=a]tm[=a]_ of all creatures, as is that divinity so is he'; though
this is doubtless the _[=a]nandamaya [=a]tm[=a]_, or joy-making Spirit
(T[=a]itt. 2. 8).

Again two forms of _brahma_ are explained (M[=a]it. Up. 6. 15 ff.):
There are two forms of _brahma_, time and not-time. That which was
before the sun is not-time and has no parts. Time and parts begin with
the sun. Time is the Father-god, the Spirit. Time makes and dissolves
all in the Spirit. He knows the Veda who knows into what Time itself
is dissolved. This manifest time is the ocean of creatures. But
_brahma_ exists before and after time.[24]

As an example of the best style of the Upanishads we will cite a
favorite passage (given no less than four times in various versions)
where the doctrine of absorption is most distinctly taught under the
form of a tale. It is the famous

DIALOGUE OF Y[=A]JNAVALKYA AND M[=A]ITREY[=I].[25]

Y[=a]jnavalkya had two wives, M[=a]itrey[=i] and K[=a]ty[=a]yani. Now
M[=a]itrey[=i] was versed in holy knowledge (_brahma_), but
K[=a]ty[=a]yani had only such knowledge as women have. But when
Y[=a]jnavalkya was about to go away into the forest (to become a
hermit), he said: 'M[=a]itrey[=i], I am going away from this
place. Behold, I will make a settlement between thee and that
K[=a]ty[=a]yani.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Lord, if this whole earth
filled with wealth were mine, how then? should I be immortal by reason
of this wealth?' 'Nay,' said Y[=a]jnavalkya. 'Even as is the life of
the rich would be thy life; by reason of wealth one has no hope of
immortality.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'With what I cannot be
immortal, what can I do with that? whatever my Lord knows even that
tell me.' And Y[=a]jnavalkya said: 'Dear to me thou art, indeed, and
fondly speakest. Therefore I will explain to thee and do thou regard
me as I explain.' And he said: 'Not for the husband's sake is a
husband dear, but for the ego's sake is the husband dear. Not for the
wife's sake is a wife dear; but for the ego's sake is a wife dear; not
for the son's sake are sons dear, but for the ego's sake are sons
dear; not for wealth's sake is wealth dear, but for the ego's sake is
wealth dear; not for the sake of the Brahman caste is the Brahman
caste dear, but for the