Bhashya
यदि चेदेवं वदथ- रेतसः प्ररोहतीति, मा वोचत मैवंसिद्धः ; अत्र च ब्रह्मणो विशेषणत्वेन आनन्दशब्दः श्रूयते-आनन्दं ब्रह्मेति ; श्रुत्यन्तरे च- 'आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजा-नात्' 'आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्' 'यदेष आकाश आनन्दोन स्यात्' 'यो वै भूमा तत्सुखम्' इति च ; 'एष परमआनन्दः' इत्येवमाद्याः ; संवेद्ये च सुखे आनन्दशब्दःप्रसिद्धः ; ब्रह्मानन्दश्च यदि संवेद्यः स्यात्, युक्ता एतेब्रह्मणि आनन्दशब्दाः ।ननु च श्रुतिप्रामाण्यात् संवेद्या-नन्दस्वरूपमेव ब्रह्म, किं तत्र विचार्यमिति- न, विरुद्धश्रु-तिवाक्यदर्शनात्- सत्यम्, आनन्दशब्दो ब्रह्मणि श्रूयते ;विज्ञानप्रतिषेधश्च एकत्वे- 'यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्,तत्केन कं पश्येत्, तत्केन कं विजानीयात्' 'यत्र नान्य-त्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा' 'प्रा-ज्ञेनात्मना संपरिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किंचन वेद' इत्यादि ;विरुद्धश्रुतिवाक्यदर्शनात् तेन कर्तव्यो विचारः ।तस्मात्युक्तं वेदवाक्यार्थनिर्णयाय विचारयितुम् ।मोक्षवादिविप्र-तिपत्तेश्च- सांख्या वैशेषिकाश्च मोक्षवादिनो नास्तिमोक्षे सुखं संवेद्यमित्येवं विप्रतिपन्नाः ; अन्ये निरतिशयंसुखं स्वसंवेद्यमिति ॥
In plain words
Suppose you say the new life sprouts from semen -- the verse itself forbids that; it simply doesn't hold up. Here's why this matters: scripture calls Brahman 'bliss' -- 'Brahman is bliss,' one passage says, and others echo it: 'he knew bliss to be Brahman,' 'the one who knows Brahman's bliss,' 'if this vastness were not bliss,' 'whatever is boundless, that is joy,' 'this is the highest bliss.' And ordinarily, we only use the word 'bliss' for a pleasure we actually experience. So if Brahman's bliss really is something experienced, all those verses make sense. But someone might object: scripture already settled it -- Brahman simply is experienced bliss, so what's left to think about? Not so fast. Other scriptures flatly contradict that. Yes, 'bliss' is said of Brahman -- but so is this: in the state of oneness, all knowing stops. 'Where everything has become just the Self, who is left to see or know anything?' 'Where nothing else is seen, heard, or known, that is fullness itself.' 'Wrapped in pure awareness, he knows nothing outside himself at all.' Because scripture pulls in both directions, we owe it real inquiry, to settle what these Vedic words actually mean. And there's a second reason to inquire: the very people who teach liberation don't agree with each other. The Sāṃkhyas and the Vaiśeṣikas both hold liberation is real, yet they insist there's no pleasure to be felt in it -- while others say liberation is unmatched bliss, known only from within.
Close to the Sanskrit
If you say thus -- 'it sprouts from semen' -- the verse says 'do not say' [that]; it is not thus established. And here the word 'bliss' is heard as a qualifier of Brahman -- 'Brahman is bliss'; and in other scriptural passages -- 'he discerned bliss to be Brahman', 'the knower of Brahman's bliss', 'if this space were not bliss', 'whatever is the plenum, that is happiness' -- and 'this is the supreme bliss' and such. And the word 'bliss' is well known in the case of an experienced pleasure; and if Brahman's bliss were an object of experience, these usages of 'bliss' regarding Brahman would be justified. But, an objector says, since scripture is authoritative, Brahman's very nature is indeed experienced bliss -- what is there to investigate? No, because contradictory scriptural statements are observed. True, the word 'bliss' is heard of Brahman; but the denial of [dualistic] cognition in oneness is also heard -- 'where all this has become the Self alone for him, by what would he see what, by what would he know what', 'where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is the plenum', 'embraced by the Self of pure consciousness, he knows nothing external whatsoever' -- and so on. Because contradictory scriptural statements are seen, an inquiry must therefore be undertaken. Therefore it is proper to deliberate in order to ascertain the meaning of the Vedic statements. And also because of the disagreement among proponents of liberation -- the Sāṃkhyas and Vaiśeṣikas, who are proponents of liberation, disagree thus: there is no experienced pleasure in liberation; while others hold that there is unsurpassed pleasure, self-experienced.