who emits
and reabsorbs the world at regular intervals, and that the soul is a
limited existence passing from body to body. In this sense the soul,
as in the Sankhya philosophy, is surrounded by the _upadhis_, certain
limiting conditions or disguises, which form a permanent psychical
equipment with which it remains invested in all its innumerable
bodies. But though these doctrines may be true for those who are in
the world, for those souls who are agents, enjoyers and sufferers,
they cease to be true for the soul which takes the path of knowledge
and sees its own identity with Brahman. It is by this means only that
emancipation is attained, for good works bring a reward in kind, and
hence inevitably lead to new embodiments, new creations of Maya. And
even in knowledge we must distinguish between the knowledge of the
lower Brahman or personal Deity (Isvara) and of the higher
indescribable Brahman.[775] For the orthodox Hindu this distinction is
of great importance, for it enables him to reconcile passages in the
scriptures which otherwise are contradictory. Worship and meditation
which make Isvara their object do not lead directly to emancipation.
They lead to the heavenly world of Isvara, in which the soul, though
glorified, is still a separate individual existence. But for him who
meditates on the Highest Brahman and knows that his true self is that
Brahman, Maya and its works cease to exist. When he dies nothing
differentiates him from that Brahman who alone is bliss and no new
individual existence arises.

The crux of this doctrine is in the theory of Maya. If Maya appertains
to Brahman, if it exists by his will, then why is it an evil, why is
release to be desired? Ought not the individual souls to serve
Brahman's purpose, and would not it be better served by living gladly
in the phenomenal world than by passing beyond it? But such an idea
has rarely satisfied Indian thinkers. If, on the other hand, Maya is
an evil or at least an imperfection, if it is like rust on a blade or
dimness in a mirror, if, so to speak, the edges of Brahman are weak
and break into fragments which are prevented by their own feebleness
from realizing the unity of the whole, then the mind wonders uneasily
if, in spite of all assurances to the contrary, this does not imply
that Brahman is subject to some external law, to some even more
mysterious Beyond. But Sankara and the Brahma-sutras will not
tolerate such doubts. According to them, Brah