Sutra 1.1.20

20. And Scripture teaches the joining of this (i.e. the individual soul) with that (i.e. bliss) in that (i.e. the ānandamaya).

'A flavour he is indeed; having obtained a flavour this one enjoys bliss' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). This text declares that this one, i.e. the so-called individual soul, enjoys bliss through obtaining the ānandamaya, here called 'flavour.' Now to say that any one is identical with that by obtaining which he enjoys bliss, would be madness indeed.—It being thus ascertained that the Self of bliss is the highest Brahman, we conclude that in passages such as 'if that bliss were not in the ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). and 'knowledge, bliss is Brahman' (Bṛ. Up. III, 9, 28), the word 'ānanda' denotes the 'ānandamaya'; just as vijñāna means the vijñānamaya. It is for the same reason (viz. of ānanda meaning the same as ānandamaya) that the clause 'he who knows the bliss of Brahman' exhibits Brahman as being connected with ānanda, and that the further clause 'he who knows this reaches the Self of bliss,' declares the reaching of the Self of bliss to be the fruit of the knowledge of bliss. In the subsequent anuvāka also, in the clauses 'he perceived that food is Brahman,' 'he perceived that breath is Brahman,' etc. (III, i; 2, etc.), the words 'food,' 'breath,' and so on, are meant to suggest the Self made of food, the Self made of breath, etc., mentioned in the preceding anuvāka; and hence also in the clause 'he perceived that bliss is Brahman,' the word 'bliss' must be understood to denote the Self of bliss. Hence, in the same anuvāka, the account of the fate after death of the man who knows concludes with the words 'having reached the Self of bliss' (III, 10,5). It is thus finally proved that the highest Brahman—which in the previous adhikaraṇa had to be shown to be other than the so-called Pradhāna—is also other than the being called individual soul.—This concludes the topic of the ānandamaya.

A new doubt here presents itself.—It must indeed be admitted that such individual souls as possess only a moderate degree of merit are unable to accomplish the creation of the world by their mere wish, to enjoy supreme bliss, to be the cause of fearlessness, and so on; but why should not beings like Āditya and Prajāpati, whose merit is extraordinarily great, be capable of all this?—Of this suggestion the next Sūtra disposes.