of all worldly bliss.  Analogously another scriptural passage declares, ’All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 32).  Further, if by the Self consisting of bliss we were to understand Brahman we should have to assume that the Brahman meant is the Brahman distinguished by qualities (savi/s/esha), because it is said to have joy and the like for its members.  But this assumption is contradicted by a complementary passage (II, 9) which declares that Brahman is the object neither of mind nor speech, and so shows that the Brahman meant is the (absolute) Brahman (devoid of qualities), ’From whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing.’  Moreover, if we speak of something as ’abounding in bliss[112],’ we thereby imply the co-existence of pain; for the word ‘abundance’ in its ordinary sense implies the existence of a small measure of what is opposed to the thing whereof there is abundance.  But the passage so understood would be in conflict with another passage (Ch.  Up.  VII, 24), ’Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite;’ which declares that in the Infinite, i.e.  Brahman, there is nothing whatever different from it.  Moreover, as joy, &c. differ in each individual body, the Self consisting of bliss also is a different one in each body.  Brahman, on the other hand, does not differ according to bodies; for the mantra at the beginning of the chapter declares it to be true Being, knowledge, infinite, and another passage says, ’He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings’ (Sv.  Up.  VI, 11).  Nor, again, does Scripture exhibit a frequent repetition of the word ‘anandamaya;’ for merely the radical part of the compound (i.e. the word ananda without the affix maya) is repeated in all the following passages; ’It is a flavour, for only after seizing flavour can any one seize bliss.  Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss existed not in the ether?  For he alone causes blessedness;’ ’Now this is an examination of bliss;’ ’He who knows the bliss of that Brahman fears nothing;’ ‘He understood that bliss is Brahman.’  If it were a settled matter that Brahman is denoted by the term, ’the Self consisting of bliss,’ then we could assume that in the subsequent passages, where merely the word ‘bliss’ is employed, the term ‘consisting of bliss’ is meant to be repeated; but that the Self consisting of bliss is not Brahman, we have already proved by means of the reason of joy being its head, and so on.  Hence, as in another scriptural passage, viz.  ’Brahman is knowledge and bliss’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 9, 28), the mere word ‘bliss’ denotes Brahman, we must conclude that also in such passages as, ’If that bliss existed not in the ether,’ the word bliss is used with reference to Brahman, and is not meant to repeat the term ’consisting of bliss.’