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.