240 Tripura Rahasya
state as objects around — eg., a pot for fetching water — so also Bliss in purity is not enjoyable, but the same becomes enjoyable when broken up as sensual pleasures. This is the truth of the scriptural statement.
One may contend that the Self is not Bliss but it seeks Bliss. If it were true, why should there be happiness in relieving oneself of a crushing load? This is perceptible at the instant of relief and similar happiness prevails in dreamless slumber. In these two instances, there are no positive sources of pleasure and yet there it is. This pleasure is however real since it is within one’s experience and cannot also be avoided. Therefore it must be of the nature of the Self. Still, this pleasure may be said to be relief from pain and not true pleasure. If so, why does a person awakened from sleep say ‘I slept happily’? The person has felt happiness in sleep. There are no happenings associated with that happiness; it is pure and must be of the nature of Self. Otherwise, even the worst savage or an animalcule would not relish sleep nor indeed long for it.
The question arises, if Bliss be of the Self, why is it not always felt? The answer is that the inherent bliss is obstructed by desire, obligations and predispositions of the mind, just as the perennial sound arising from within is not heard owing to the interference of external sounds, but is perceived when the ears are plugged. The pain of the load predominates for the time being, over the other natural painful dispositions of the mind, and disappears at the instant of unburdening. During the interval before the other dispositions lying latent rise up to the surface, there is peace