se can be made
of the truth, but for the Hindus divine knowledge is an end and a state,
not a means. It is not thought of as something which may be used to
improve the world or for any other purpose whatever. For use and purpose
imply that the thing utilized is subservient and inferior to an end,
whereas divine knowledge is the culmination and meaning of the universe,
or, from another point of view, the annihilation of both the external
world and individuality. Hence the Hindu does not expect of his saints
philanthropy or activity of any sort.

As already indicated, the characteristic (though not the only) answer of
India to these questionings is that nothing really exists except God or,
better, except Brahman. The soul is identical with Brahman. The external
world which we perceive is not real in the same sense: it is in some way
or other an evolution of Brahman or even mere illusion. This doctrine is
not universal: it is for instance severely criticized and rejected by
the older forms of Buddhism but its hold on the Indian temperament is
seen by its reappearance in later Buddhism where by an astounding
transformation the Buddha is identified with the universal spirit.
Though the form in which I have quoted the doctrine above is an epitome
of the Vedanta, it is hardly correct historically to give it as an
epitome of the older Upanishads. Their teaching is less complete and
uncompromising, more veiled, tentative and allusive, and sometimes
cumbered by material notions. But it is obviously the precursor of the
Vedanta and the devout Vedantist can justify his system from it.

3

Instead of attempting to summarize the Upanishads it may be well to
quote one or two celebrated passages. One is from the
Brihad-Aranyaka[182] and relates how Yajnavalkya, when about to retire
to the forest as an ascetic, wished to divide his property between his
two wives, Katyayani "who possessed only such knowledge as women
possess" and Maitreyi "who was conversant with Brahman." The latter
asked her husband whether she would be immortal if she owned the whole
world. "No," he replied, "like the life of the rich would be thy life
but there is no hope of immortality." Maitreyi said that she had no need
of what would not make her immortal. Yajnavalkya proceeded to explain to
her his doctrine of the Atman, the self or essence, the spirit present
in man as well as in the universe. "Not for the husband's sake is the
husband dear but for the sake