The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s5.43

v2.c40.s5.43

The nature of the absolute as bliss is also asserted by Yājñavalkya,⁷ who brings the conception into the closest relation with his idea of its nature. The bliss which he contemplates is that of the man in dreamless sleep, when the consciousness of individuality is lost, and when the self, therefore, is above all pain and grief and enjoys pure bliss, whence it is a simple step to the equation of the absolute and bliss. Nor is there much doubt that here again the Chāndogya¹ depends on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka,² when it enunciates the doctrine of the absolute as ether, breath, and joy under the mystic name of Kha. The Kauṣītaki³ also seems to borrow from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, and the whole idea is further developed in the Taittirīya,⁴ in the Ānandavallī. There special stress is laid on the error of seeking to find any division of subject and object in bliss: that would create division and would admit the idea of fear, which can arise only from division. The dependence on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka of this doctrine is borne out by the relation of the *ānandamaya* self to the *vijñānamaya*: in the former text they are the same idea, and, therefore, the conscious self is the highest, there being no difference of subject and object in it: the Taittirīya refines by making the *vijñānamaya* still have the distinction of subject and object, and then erecting the *ānandamaya* above it in rank. It is characteristic of the growth of these distinctions that, later on,⁵ the *ānandamaya* itself became regarded as a mere sheath (*koça*) in which the self or the Brahman resided.