Bhashya
किं तावद्युक्तम्? आनन्दादिश्रवणात् 'जक्षत्क्रीडन्रममा-णः' 'स यदि पितृलोककामो भवति' 'यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्' 'सर्वान्कामान्समश्नुते' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः मोक्षे सुखं संवेद्यमिति ।ननु एकत्वे कारकविभागाभावात् विज्ञानानुपपत्तिः, क्रियायाश्चानेककारकसाध्यत्वात् विज्ञानस्य च क्रियात्वात्— नैष दोषः; शब्दप्रामाण्यात् भवेत् विज्ञानमानन्दविषये ; 'विज्ञानमानन्दम्' इत्यादीनि आनन्दस्वरूपस्यासंवेद्यत्वेऽनुपपन्नानि वचनानीत्यवोचाम ।ननु वचनेनापि अग्नेः शैत्यम् उदकस्य च औष्ण्यं न क्रियत एव, ज्ञापकत्वाद्वचनानाम्; न च देशान्तरेऽग्निः शीत इति शक्यते ज्ञापयितुम्; अगम्ये वा देशान्तरे उष्णमुदकमिति— न, प्रत्यगात्मन्यानन्दविज्ञानदर्शनात्; न 'विज्ञानमानन्दम्' इत्येवमादीनां वचनानां शीतोऽग्निरित्यादिवाक्यवत् प्रत्यक्षादिविरुद्धार्थप्रतिपादकत्वम् ।अनुभूयते तु अविरुद्धार्थता; सुखी अहम् इति सुखात्मकमात्मानं स्वयमेव वेदयते; तस्मात् सुतरां प्रत्यक्षाविरुद्धार्थता; तस्मात् आनन्दं ब्रह्म विज्ञानात्मकं सत् स्वयमेव वेदयते ।तथा आनन्दप्रतिपादिकाः श्रुतयः समञ्जसाः स्युः 'जक्षत्क्रीडन्रममाणः' इत्येवमाद्याः पूर्वोक्ताः ॥
In plain words
So which side is right? Scripture keeps describing liberation this way -- 'eating, playing, delighting,' 'if he wants the world of his ancestors, he gets it,' 'the one who knows everything, perceives everything,' 'he gets every desire fulfilled.' Passages like these say plainly: liberation includes pleasure you actually feel. Someone objects: in pure oneness there's no split between knower, known, and knowing -- so cognition itself becomes impossible, since any act, including an act of knowing, needs several distinct parts working together. But that's no real problem. Scripture's own words are authority enough for cognition to occur with bliss as its object; we've already shown that a phrase like 'cognition is bliss' would be meaningless if bliss weren't something experienced. Another objection: mere words can't make fire cold or water hot -- they don't create anything, just inform, and you can't 'inform' someone that fire somewhere else is cold, or that water in some unreachable place is hot. True -- but that misses the point: you feel bliss as cognition directly, inside your own awareness. Saying 'cognition is bliss' isn't like saying 'fire is cold' -- one contradicts what you can check, the other doesn't. What you actually experience is uncontradicted: 'I am happy' -- you know yourself, made of happiness, immediately and by nothing but yourself. So this is, if anything, even more clearly a truth perception can't contradict. Which means Brahman, which is bliss, being pure consciousness, is simply self-revealing -- known by nothing other than itself. And that's exactly why all those passages about bliss hold together as one consistent teaching: 'eating, playing, delighting,' and the rest already named.
Close to the Sanskrit
Which, then, is proper? Because of hearing [scriptural words like] bliss and so on -- 'eating, playing, delighting', 'if he becomes one desiring the world of the fathers', 'the one who is all-knowing, all-perceiving', 'attains all desires' -- from such scriptural passages, [it follows that] in liberation pleasure is an object of experience. Objection: in the state of oneness, since there is no division of factors, cognition is impossible, because an action is accomplished by multiple factors, and cognition too is an action. This is not a flaw; by the authority of scriptural words, cognition can occur with regard to bliss as an object; we have already stated that statements such as 'cognition is bliss' would be untenable if the nature of bliss were not an object of experience. Objection: even by a mere statement, the coldness of fire or the heat of water is not thereby brought about, because words are only informative; nor can it be established by words that fire elsewhere is cold, or that water in some inaccessible place is hot. No -- because the cognition of bliss is directly seen within the inner Self; statements like 'cognition is bliss' do not, like the statement 'fire is cold', assert a meaning contradicted by perception and the like. Rather, a non-contradicted meaning is directly experienced: 'I am happy' -- thus one experiences the self, of the nature of happiness, by oneself alone; therefore, all the more, this is a meaning not contradicted by perception; therefore Brahman, which is bliss, being of the nature of consciousness, reveals itself by itself alone. Thus the scriptural passages that teach bliss would be consistent -- 'eating, playing, delighting' and such passages already mentioned.