Madhvaon Brahma Sūtra 1.1.13

It cannot be said that the affix in the term is appropriate only when it denotes Prakriti, etc. j since they are either products or deities presiding over the modified, but not in the case of the Supreme Being. For he is called Anandamaya because He is perfect in bliss, not because he is a modification of it. And also of other terms. Food, etc., only abundance is meant. From the explanation of the word Anna (food) given in the Vedic text, ‘ It is eaten and is the eater of all beings,’ it is right to take the term (affix) in the sense of abundance. The state of being eaten is of course the state of being depended upon (by all crea- tures) for their means of living. In the sentence, * He indeed is this,’ (T. U. ii. 2) reference to the other (the distant one) is begun. “ Those who meditate on Food a Brahman,’ etc. (T. U. ii. 2). As these texts have the word Brahman used in them, and as Brahman appears in many forms, there is no modification meant. Hence no contradiction arises. It would not be consistent to interpret (the terras) in a different way. The termination may also signify the nature of the thing itself as in the expression ‘ the Sun is a flood of effulgence.’