The repetition of the full compound, ‘consisting of bliss,’ which occurs in the passage, ‘He reaches that Self consisting of bliss’ (Taitt.  Up.  II, 8), does not refer to Brahman, as it is contained in the enumeration of Non-Selfs, comprising the Self of food, &c., all of which are mere effects, and all of which are represented as things to be reached.—­But, it may be said, if the Self consisting of bliss, which is said to have to be reached, were not Brahman—­just as the Selfs consisting of food, &c. are not Brahman—­then it would not be declared (in the passage immediately following) that he who knows obtains for his reward Brahman.—­This objection we invalidate by the remark that the text makes its declaration as to Brahman—­which is the tail, the support—­being reached by him who knows, by the very means of the declaration as to the attainment of the Self of bliss; as appears from the passage, ’On this there is also this sloka, from which all speech returns,’ &c.  With reference, again, to the passage, ’He desired:  may I be many, may I grow forth,’ which is found in proximity to the mention of the Self consisting of bliss, we remark that it is in reality connected (not with the Self of bliss but with) Brahman, which is mentioned in the still nearer passage, ’Brahman is the tail, the support,’ and does therefore not intimate that the Self of bliss is Brahman.  And, on account of its referring to the passage last quoted (’it desired,’ &c.), the later passage also, ‘That is flavour,’ &c., has not the Self of bliss for its subject.—­But, it may be objected, the (neuter word) Brahman cannot possibly be designated by a masculine word as you maintain is done in the passage, ‘He desired,’ &c.—­In reply to this objection we point to the passage (Taitt.  Up.  II, 1), ’From that Self sprang ether,’ where, likewise, the masculine word ‘Self’ can refer to Brahman only, since the latter is the general topic of the chapter.  In the knowledge of Bh/ri/gu and Varu/n/a finally (’he knew that bliss is Brahman’), the word ‘bliss’ is rightly understood to denote Brahman, since we there meet neither with the affix ‘maya,’ nor with any statement as to joy being its head, and the like.  To ascribe to Brahman in itself joy, and so on, as its members, is impossible, unless we have recourse to certain, however minute, distinctions qualifying Brahman; and that the whole chapter is not meant to convey a knowledge of the qualified (savi/s/esha) Brahman is proved by the passage (quoted above), which declares that Brahman transcends speech and mind.  We therefore must conclude that the affix maya, in the word anandamaya, does not denote abundance, but expresses a mere effect, just as it does in the words annamaya and the subsequent similar compounds.