The three corresponding verses, treating of sambhuti and asambhuti instead of vidya and avidya, stand first in the Vagasaneyi-samhita. They must necessarily be explained in accordance with our explanation of the former verses, i. e. sambhuti must correspond to vidya, it must be meant for the true cause, i. e. for Brahman, while asambhuti must correspond with avidya, as a name of what is not real, but phenomenal only and perishable.

Mahidhara thinks that these verses refer to the Bauddhas, which can hardly be admitted, unless we take Buddhist in a very general sense. Uvata puts the Lokayatas in their place . It is curious also to observe that Mahidhara, following Uvata, explains asambhuti at first by the denial of the resurrection of the body, while he takes sambhuti rightly for Brahman. I have chiefly followed Uvata's commentary, except in his first explanation of asambhuti, resurrection . In what follows Uvata explains sambhuti rightly by the only cause of the origin of the whole world, i. e. Brahman , while he takes vinasa, destruction, as a name of the perishable body .

Sankara sees much more in these three verses than Uvata. He takes asambhuti as a name of Prakriti, the undeveloped cause, sambhuti as a name of the phenomenal Brahman or Hiranyagarbha. From a worship of the latter a man obtains supernatural powers, from devotion to the former, absorption in Prakriti.

Mahidhara also takes a similar view, and he allows, like Sankara, another reading, viz. sambhutim avinasam ka, and avinasena mrityum tirtva. In this case the sense would be: 'He who knows the worship both of the developed and the undeveloped, overcomes

death, i. e. such evil as sin, passion, &c., through worship of the undeveloped, while he obtains through worship of the developed, i. e. of Hiranyagarbha, immortality, absorption in Prakriti.'

All these forced explanations to which the commentators have recourse, arise from the shifting views held by various authorities with regard to the value of works. Our Upanishad seems to me to propound the doctrine that works, though in themselves useless, or even mischievous, if performed with a view to any present or future rewards, are necessary as a preparatory discipline. This is or was for a long time the orthodox view. Each man was required to pass through the asramas, or stages of student and householder, before he was admitted to the freedom of a Sannyasin. As on a ladder, no step was to be skipped. Those who attempted to do so, were considered to have broken the old law, and in some respects they may indeed be looked upon as the true precursors of the Buddhists.