nce for each of the four
stadia of a priest's life.[30] There is no hint in any of this of the
importance of the knowledge of the _[=a]tm[=a]._ But in their proper
place the rules of morality and the higher philosophical views are
taught. The doctrine of re-birth is formally stated, and the
attainment of the world of Brahm[=a] _(brahma)_ by union of ceremonies
and knowledge is inculcated. The ascetic should seek, by meditation,
to go to Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_) for when he is utterly indifferent,
then, both here and after death, he gains everlasting happiness.
Therefore he should study the Vedas, but especially the teachings in
regard to the Supreme Spirit, and the Upanishads; studying the
Ved[=a]nta is a regular part of his final discipline (VI, 74-94). In
another part of the work the distinction made in the Upanishads is
upheld, that religious acts are of two sorts, one designed to procure
bliss, and cause a good man to reach equality with the gods; the other
performed without selfish motive; by which latter "even the five
elements are overcome," that is, the absorption into _brahma_ is
effected. For "among all virtuous acts the knowledge of the spirit,
_[=a]tm[=a],_ is highest; through this is obtained even immortality.
One that sees spirit in all things and all things in spirit sacrifices
to spirit and enters Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_)" "The spirit (or self) is
all divinities; the All is based on spirit." And in Upanishadic vein
the Person is then proclaimed as lord of gods, whom "some call fire,
some call Manu, some call Indra, some call air, and some call eternal
_brahma._" But though this be the view of the closing verses, yet in
the beginning of the work is this Person represented as being produced
from a First Cause. It would be out of place here to analyse the
conflicting philosophical views of the Manu code. Even his
commentators are uncertain whether he belonged to the pantheistic
Ved[=a]nta or dualistic S[=a]nkhya school. For them that believe in no
Manu the solution is simpler. Although Manu is usually called a
Puranic Sankhyan, yet are both schools represented, and that without
regard to incongruous teaching. Manu is no more Sankhyan than
Vedantic. Indeed in the main part of the work the teaching is clearly
more Vedantic. But it suffices here to point out that the
_[=a]tm[=a]_-philosophy and religion is not ignored; it is taught as
essential. Nevertheless, it is not taught in such a way as to indicate
that it