^250:2 This is again one of the famous verses of our Upanishad, because it formed for a long time a bone of contention between Vedanta and Sankhya philosophers. The Sankhyas admit two principles, the Purusha, the absolute subject, and the Prakriti, generally translated by nature. The Vedanta philosophers admit nothing but the one absolute subject, and look upon nature as due to a power inherent in that subject. The later Sankhyas therefore, who are as anxious as the Vedantins to find authoritative passages in the Veda, confirming their opinions, appeal to this and other passages, to show that their view of Prakriti, as an independent power, is supported by the Veda. The whole question is fully discussed in the Vedanta-sutras I, 4, 8. Here we read rohita-krishna-suklam, which seems preferable to lohita-krishna-varnam, at least from a Vedanta point of view, for the three colours, red, black, and white, are explained as signifying either the three gunas, ragas, sattva, and tamas, or better (Khand. Up. VI, 3, 1), the three elements, tegas (fire), ap (water), and anna (earth). A. reads rohitasuklakrishnam; B. lohitasuklakrishna (sic). We also find in A. and B. bhuktabhogam for bhuktabhogyam, but the latter seems technically the more correct reading. It would be quite wrong to imagine that aga and aga are meant here for he-goat and she-goat. These words, in the sense of unborn, are recognised as early as the hymns of the Rig-veda, and they occurred in our Upanishad I, 9, where the two agas are mentioned in the same sense as here. But there is, no doubt, a play on the words, and the poet wished to convey the second meaning of he-goat and she-goat, only not as the primary, but as the secondary intention.

^251:1 The same verses occur in the Mundaka Up. III, 1.

^251:2 It is difficult to see how this verse comes in here. In the Taitt. Ar. II, 11, 6, it is quoted in connection with the syllable Om, the Akshara, in which all the Vedas are comprehended. It is similarly used in the Nrisimha-purva-tapani, IV, 2; V, 2. In our passage, however, akshara is referred by Sankara to the paramatman, and I have translated it accordingly. Rikah is explained as a genitive singular, but it may also be taken as a nom. plur., and in that case both the verses of the Veda and the gods are said to reside in the Akshara, whether we take it for the Paramatman or for the Om. In the latter case, parame vyoman is explained by utkrishte and rakshake.