[Advaita-l] Kena Upanishad Shankara bhashya- pada, vakya, sanskrit question. (अभ्रूम)

[Krishna Kashyap]

the important issue in the pada bhashya is - is the upanishad complete as
said earlier, or is there something more to be said which is connected to
the upanishad.
the answer given is yes the upanishad is complete.
then how should we understand the rest of the upanishad which talks about
tapas and other angas.?
here is the answer by the pada bhasya kara:

see details and at the end of the explanation of this sentence:

उपनिषदं भो ब्रूहीत्युक्ता त उपनिषद्ब्राह्मीं वाव त उपनिषदमब्रूमेति ॥ ७ ॥
............
एवमनुशिष्टः शिष्य आचार्यमुवाच — उपनिषदं रहस्यं यच्चिन्त्यं भो भगवन् ब्रूहि
इति । ...............................................................

............ ‘मोक्षमिच्छन्सदा कर्म त्यजेदेव ससाधनम् । त्यजतैव हि तज्ज्ञेयं
त्यक्तुः प्रत्यक्परं पदम्’ ( ? ) तस्मात्कर्मणां सहकारित्वं कर्मशेषापेक्षा
वा न ज्ञानस्योपपद्यते । ततोऽसदेव सूक्तवाकानुमन्त्रणवद्यथायोगं विभाग इति ।
तस्मादवधारणार्थतैव प्रश्नप्रतिवचनस्योपपद्यते ।
एतावत्येवेयमुपनिषदुक्तान्यनिरपेक्षा अमृतत्वाय ॥
this last line clearly denies jnana karma samucchaya. no karma of the form
of tapas and so on are needed for amrita other than jnana.
hence the ukta, abruma used as past tense makes more sense, from the pada
bhashya kara view.



*Best Regards,*

*Krishna Kashyap*




On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:29 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashyap2011 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> the word abruma comes only in लङ् lakara, which is past tense. This cannot
> be used to indicate "ï will tell it now". Either there seems to be a
> mistake in the usage by Vedas, if you take this vakya bhashya view as
> valid, or the vakya bhashya is itself questionable!
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Krishna Kashyap*
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:27 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste.
>>
>> Laws of grammar are not flouted. The word abrUma itself is not employed
>> to represent future tense. What is intended is that when the AchArya says
>> *that* has so far not been told, what he intends to say is that he will
>> presently be telling that. Hence the word abrUma should be understood to
>> mean that the AchArya is saying *will tell it now*. Hence the sentence
>> should be completed by adding *will tell now*.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:18 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashyap2011 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste,
>>> My question is "Is this a Vedic usage, where one is allowed to flout the
>>> laws of grammar?". why would Vedas use past tense to mean future tense
>>> vakshyamaha?
>>>
>>> *Best Regards,*
>>>
>>> *Krishna Kashyap*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:11 PM H S Chandramouli <
>>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste.
>>>>
>>>> When the Acharya says that what has been told thus far is such and
>>>> such. But we have not covered such and such, the intended meaning is that
>>>> this will follow now. Hence **abrUma is to be understood as vakshyAmah**.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 4:57 PM H S Chandramouli <
>>>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bhashya itself states as under
>>>>>
>>>>> // अब्रूम वक्ष्याम इत्यर्थः //.
>>>>> abrUma is to be understood as vakshyAmah. vakshyAmah is in present or
>>>>> future tense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 4:24 PM Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <
>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My follow-up question is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in vakya bhashya this is given:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> तस्मान्न भूताभिप्रायोऽब्रूमेत्ययं शब्दः ॥
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is it allowed in Sanskrit to state that a particular word is in the
>>>>>> past
>>>>>> tense, however, it should be taken as future tense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Best Regards,*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Krishna Kashyap*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:34 AM Krishna Kashyap <
>>>>>> kkashyap2011 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I have a Sanskrit question. This comes up in Kena Upanishad. The
>>>>>> word “ ”
>>>>>> > is used both in past tense and future tense in two bhashyas of kena
>>>>>> > upanishad “pada bhashya” and "vakya bhashya". It is generally
>>>>>> accepted that
>>>>>> > both these bhashyas were authored by Adi Shankaracharya.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Here is the pada bhashya portion:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > •उपनिषदं भो ब्रूहीत्युक्ता त उपनिषद्ब्राह्मीं वाव त उपनिषदमब्रूमेति
>>>>>> ॥ ७ ॥
>>>>>> > pada bhashya
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > •उपनिषदं रहस्यं यच्चिन्त्यं भो भगवन् ब्रूहि इति । एवमुक्तवति शिष्ये
>>>>>> > आहाचार्यः — उक्ता अभिहिता ते तव उपनिषत् । का पुनः सेत्याह —
>>>>>> ब्राह्मीं
>>>>>> > ब्रह्मणः परमात्मन इयं ब्राह्मी ताम् ,
>>>>>> परमात्मविषयत्वादतीतविज्ञानस्य, वाव एव
>>>>>> > ते उपनिषदमब्रूमेति उक्तामेव
>>>>>> परमात्मविषयामुपनिषदमब्रूमेत्यवधारयत्युत्तरार्थम्
>>>>>> > ।
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Here is the vakya bhashya portion:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > •उपनिषदं भो ब्रूहीत्युक्ता त उपनिषद्ब्राह्मीं वाव त उपनिषदमब्रूमेति
>>>>>> ॥ ७ ॥
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > •उपनिषदं भो ब्रूहीत्युक्तायामुपनिषदि शिष्येणोक्त आचार्य आह — उक्ता
>>>>>> कथिता
>>>>>> > ते तुभ्यम् उपनिषदात्मोपासनम् । अधुना ब्राह्मीं वाव ते तुभ्यं
>>>>>> ब्रह्मणो
>>>>>> > ब्राह्मणजातेः उपनिषदम् अब्रूम वक्ष्याम इत्यर्थः । वक्ष्यति हि ।
>>>>>> ब्राह्मी
>>>>>> > नोक्ता । उक्ता त्वात्मोपनिषत् । तस्मान्न भूताभिप्रायोऽब्रूमेत्ययं
>>>>>> शब्दः ॥
>>>>>> > What is the recension of this अभ्रूम pada in present and future
>>>>>> tenses?
>>>>>> > Is this a vaidika pada which has the same form in these 2 sentences?
>>>>>> > thanks to Advaitasharada.net for text of these bhashyas!
>>>>>> > *Best Regards,*
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > *Krishna Kashyap*
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>>>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For assistance, contact:
>>>>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>