19.  And, moreover, it (i.e.  Scripture) teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that, (i.e. the Self consisting of bliss), on that (being fully known).

And for the following reason also the term, ’the Self consisting of bliss,’ cannot denote either the pradhana or the individual soul.  Scripture teaches that the individual soul when it has reached knowledge is joined, i.e. identified, with the Self of bliss under discussion, i.e. obtains final release.  Compare the following passage (Taitt.  Up.  II, 7), ’When he finds freedom from fear, and rest in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless.  For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him.’  That means, if he sees in that Self consisting of bliss even a small difference in the form of non-identity, then he finds no release from the fear of transmigratory existence.  But when he, by means of the cognition of absolute identity, finds absolute rest in the Self consisting of bliss, then he is freed from the fear of transmigratory existence.  But this (finding absolute rest) is possible only when we understand by the Self consisting of bliss, the highest Self, and not either the pradhana or the individual soul.  Hence it is proved that the Self consisting of bliss is the highest Self.

But, in reality, the following remarks have to be made concerning the true meaning of the word ‘anandamaya[111].’  On what grounds, we ask, can it be maintained that the affix ‘maya’ after having, in the series of compounds beginning with annamaya and ending with vij/n/anamaya, denoted mere modifications, should all at once, in the word anandamaya, which belongs to the same series, denote abundance, so that anandamaya would refer to Brahman?  If it should be said that the assumption is made on account of the governing influence of the Brahman proclaimed in the mantra (which forms the beginning of the chapter, Taitt.  Up.  II), we reply that therefrom it would follow that also the Selfs consisting of food, breath, &c., denote Brahman (because the governing influence of the mantra extends to them also).—­The advocate of the former interpretation will here, perhaps, restate an argument already made use of above, viz. as follows:  To assume that the Selfs consisting of food, and so on, are not Brahman is quite proper, because after each of them an inner Self is mentioned.  After the Self of bliss, on the other hand, no further inner Self is mentioned, and hence it must be considered to be Brahman itself; otherwise we should commit the mistake of dropping the subject-matter in hand (as which Brahman is pointed out by the mantra), and taking up a new topic.—­But to this we reply that, although unlike the case of the Selfs consisting of food, &c., no inner Self is mentioned after the Self consisting of bliss, still the latter cannot be considered as Brahman, because with reference to the Self consisting