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

[Krishna Kashyap]

Thanks, Sudanshu Ji. for the clarification. this panini ashtadhyayi info is
useful. I apologize for bringing this up. i use HH SSS to indicate HH
Sachidanandendra Swami.

//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!//

Definitely, I don't have so much knowledge to make any bold statement. this
is just a doubt in my mind. I am raising it without fear of a powerful
counter-argument so that I can learn.

*However, there were other reasons for such a view.* I am not a grammar
expert, Veda, or Upanishad expert. I am a student sincerely trying to
understand. I have studied almost every sentence of Shankara Bhashya from
HH SSS book and I understand some superficial Sanskrit. I have studied some
Upanishad bhashyas of Shankaracharya. the style of vakya bhashya seems
different. Further see below:

there is an interesting note from HH SSS: in his view, this sentence of the
vakya bhasya seems inappropriate (as per HH SSS) see below:

•। ईश्वरनिमित्ते विजये स्वसामर्थ्यनिमित्तोऽस्माकमेवायं विजयोऽस्माकमेवायं
महिमेत्यात्मनो जयादिश्रेयोनिमित्तं सर्वात्मानमात्मस्थं
सर्वकल्याणास्पदमीश्वरमेवात्मत्वेनाबुद्ध्वा पिण्डमात्राभिमानाः सन्तो यं
मिथ्याप्रत्ययं चक्रुः तस्य पिण्डमात्रविषयत्वेन
मिथ्याप्रत्ययत्वात्सर्वात्मेश्वरयाथात्म्यावबोधेन हातव्यताख्यापनार्थः
तद्धैषामित्याद्याख्यायिकाम्नायः

footnote in HH SSS book•This indicates that agni, vayu, Indra, who are
exalted, had dehatma-bhrama to the extent that they did not believe in an
atman other than the body पिण्डमात्राभिमानाः सन्तो - this seems
inappropriate!!- HH SSS

Please note: In another Upanishad when Virochana, asura, and Indra went to
learn under Prajapati, Virochana had dehatma bhrama, while Indra returned
to learn 3 or 4 times and finally found the true answer. He did not have
dehatma bhrama.
stating that Indra had dehatma bhrama in kena upanishad seems awkward.

on the contrary, pada bhasya seems non commital:
see kena upanishad pada bhashya which simply indicates *मिथ्याभिमान and
nothing more serious than that:*
*सा ब्रह्मेति होवाच ह किल ब्रह्मणः वै ईश्वरस्यैव विजये — ईश्वरेणैव जिता
असुराः । यूयं तत्र निमित्तमात्रम् । तस्यैव विजये — यूयं महीयध्वं महिमानं
प्राप्नुथ । एतदिति क्रियाविशेषणार्थम् । मिथ्याभिमानस्तु युष्माकम् —
अस्माकमेवायं विजयोऽस्माकमेवायं महिमेति । ततः तस्मादुमावाक्यात् ह एव
विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति इन्द्रः ; अवधारणात् ततो हैव इति, न स्वातन्त्र्येण ॥*

*this seems appropriate respect for Indra who saw Uma and had a
conversation!*
*अथवा उमैव हिमवतो दुहिता हैमवती नित्यमेव सर्वज्ञेनेश्वरेण सह वर्तत इति
ज्ञातुं समर्थेति कृत्वा तामुपजगाम.*
how many of us can meet face to face Venerable "Parvati"? hence we have to
accept Indra as spiritually superior to at least me! if not others.

*I am open to being corrected. Please bash me up!!! I will learn more! How
can I have ego, since I spent 50 years in search of money and a good life
without being dedicated to Upanishads?*
Incidentally, i liked the ishwara siddhi arguments in vakya bhashya which
is very unique, since nowhere in any other part of shankara-bhashya of
dasha upanishads or sutras or gita, is such a long argument for ïshwara
siddhi given.




*Best Regards,*

*Krishna Kashyap*




On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:49 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Krishna ji.
>
> 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?
>>
>
> There is no flouting of rules of grammar here.
>
> Please refer to ashTAdhyAyI 3.4.6 - छन्दसि लुङ्लङ्लिटः. It basically means
> that in case of VedAs, लुङ्, लङ् and लिट् लकार are not restricted to their
> usual scope i.e. सामान्य भूत काल, अनद्यतन भूत काल and अनद्यतन परोक्ष भूतकाल
> respectively. They can be used for present tense as well as for future
> tense.
>
> For example: Rigveda 10.121.1 - स दाधार पृथिवीम्. Here, दाधार is लिट् but
> used in the sense of both present and future. It is not that HiraNyagarbha
> bears earth only in past and not in present and future. Please check SAyaNa
> BhAshya and commentary on Ashtadhyayi.
>
> Similarly, अ॒द्या म॒मार॒ (ऋ० १०.५५.५) is understood as अद्य म्रियते.
>
> आगमत् shows there is usage of लुङ् in present tense.
>
> Similarly for  लङ् in case of अकरम्.
>
> Here, in the instant case of Kena Upanishad also, the same sUtra 3.4.6 is
> to be applied. Here, अब्रूम is in लङ् but being from Shruti, it can be
> understood as both present as well as future tense.
>
> In a nut-shell:
>
> Though लुङ्, लङ् and लिट् लकार are in the sense of past tense, in case of
> their usage in VedAs, they can refer to present as well as future tense in
> accordance with ashTAdhyAyI 3.4.6. [छन्दसि विषये धातुसंबन्धे सर्वेषु कालेषु
> लुङ्लङ्लिटः प्रत्यया भवन्ति।]
>
> Therefore, it is clear that bhAshya is in accordance with rules of grammar.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> *P.S.*
>
> //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!//
>
> We should exercise utmost caution before venturing to even contemplate
> such an idea.
>
>
>