आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात् ॥ १२ ॥
ānandamayo’bhyāsāt || 12 ||
ānandamayaḥ—“The Self consisting of bliss”; abhyāsāt—because of the repetition.
12. (In the passage) “The Self consisting of bliss” etc. (Brahman, which is spoken of as the tail, is put forward as an independent entity and not as something subordinate to Anandamaya, the Self consisting of bliss) on account of the repetition (of Brahman as the main topic in many passages of that chapter).
In topic 5 the word ‘thinking’ attributed to the First Cause is interpreted in its direct sense, thus establishing the intelligent principle Brahman as the First Cause, and the figurative meaning, which would
have established the Pradhana, is thrown out as being doubtful. But here such a thing, that is the establishing of Brahman, is impossible, for the terms denoting parts allow no room for doubt, thus making it impossible to interpret the texts as referring to Brahman. This connects the present topic with the last one by way of objection.
The passage in question is :
“Different from this self, which consists of understanding (Vijnanamaya), is the inner self which consists of bliss …. Joy is the head, satisfaction is its right wing, rapture is its left wing, bliss is its trunk, Brahman is the tail, the support” (Taitt. 2. 5).
The Sutra says that here Brahman, which is spoken of as the tail, is treated as an independent entity and is not to be taken as a part of “the self consisting of bliss,” for ‘tail’ here does not mean the limb, in which sense it is generally used, but the support of the individual soul made up of “the self consisting of bliss”, as Brahman is the substratum of the imaginary individual soul. This conclusion is arrived at, because Brahman without any limiting adjuncts whatsoever is again and again reiterated in these Taittiriya texts.
[Sutras 12-19 are interpreted by the Vrittikara (who is probably Upavarsha) as follows : The Taittiriya Upanishad 2. 1-4 after enumerating the selves consisting of food, vital force, mind, and understanding, speaks of “the self consisting of bliss” in the passage quoted above. (Taitt. 2. 5). The question is whether this refers to the individual soul or Brahman. The opponent holds that it refers to the individual soul, because the word ‘Ananda-maya’ denotes a modification and therefore cannot refer to Brahman, which is unchangeable. Moreover, five different parts are enumerated of this Ananda-maya, the self consisting of bliss; this is not possible in the case of Brahman, which is without parts. Sutras 12-19, according to this interpretation, maintain that ‘Anandamaya’, the self consisting of bliss, refers to Brahman on account of the repetition of the word ‘Anandamaya’ in these Taittiriya texts. Repetition has already been said to be one of the characteristics by which the subject-matter of a passage is ascertained. Brahman, again, has been proved to be the main topic of the Vedanta texts (Ch. 1, Sec. 1, Sutra 4). Therefore ‘Anandamaya’ refers to Brahman. Moreover, the opening words of the second chapter of the Taittiriya Upanishad, “Truth, Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman” (Taitt. 2. 1), and texts like, “He projected all this” (Taitt. 2. 6), make it clear that Brahman is the topic. The termination ‘mayat’ is also not out of place in Brahman, for it is used here to denote an abundance of bliss. The possession of a body having parts is also ascribed to It, only because of the immediately preceding limiting condition, viz. the self consisting of understanding and does not really belong to It. Hence “the self consisting of bliss” is the highest Brahman.
Sankara objects to this interpretation of the Sutras and says that Anandamaya cannot be the highest Brahman. First of all, there is no justification, for suddenly changing the interpretation of the affix ‘mayat’ from modification in the case of Vijnanamaya, Pranamaya, etc. in the preceding passages to abundance in tne case of Anandamaya, so as to make this word refer to Brahman. Again the very idea of preponderance or abundance of bliss suggests that there is also misery in it, however slight. Such an idea with respect to Brahman is absurd. So Sankara replaces this interpretation of the Sutras, which Anandagiri attributes to the Vrittikara, by another, which we have reproduced above.]