|
Page1
20. And Scripture teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that (i.e. bliss) in that (i.e. the anandamaya).
'A flavour he is indeed; having obtained a flavour this one enjoys bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This text declares that this one, i.e. the so-called individual soul, enjoys bliss through obtaining the anandamaya, here called 'flavour.' Now to say that any one is identical with that by obtaining which he enjoys bliss, would be madness indeed.--It being thus ascertained that the Self of bliss is the highest Brahman, we conclude that in passages such as 'if that bliss were not in the ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). and 'knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 28), the word 'ananda' denotes the 'anandamaya'; just as vigñana means the vigñanamaya. It is for the same reason (viz. of ananda meaning the same as anandamaya) that the clause 'he who knows the bliss of Brahman' exhibits Brahman as being connected with ananda, and that the further clause 'he who knows this reaches the Self of bliss,' declares the reaching of the Self of bliss to be the fruit of the knowledge of bliss. In the subsequent anuvaka also, in the clauses 'he perceived that food is Brahman,' 'he perceived that breath is Brahman,' &c. (III, i; 2, &c.), the words 'food,' 'breath,' and so on, are meant to suggest the Self made of food, the Self made of breath, &c., mentioned in the preceding anuvaka; and hence also in the clause 'he perceived that bliss is Brahman,' the word 'bliss' must be understood to denote the Self of bliss. Hence, in the same anuvaka, the account of the fate after death of the man who knows concludes with the words 'having reached the Self of bliss' (III, 10,5). It is thus finally proved that the highest Brahman--which in the previous adhikarana had to be shown to be other than the so-called Pradhana--is also other than the being called individual soul.--This concludes the topic of the anandamaya.
A new doubt here presents itself.--It must indeed be admitted that such individual souls as possess only a moderate degree of merit are unable to accomplish the creation of the world by their mere wish, to enjoy supreme bliss, to be the cause of fearlessness, and so on; but why should not beings like Âditya and Pragapati, whose merit is extraordinarily great, be capable of all this?--Of this suggestion the next Sûtra disposes.
|
