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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 6:39 PM Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
>

Here, in the Ishavasya Bhashyam, Shankara says that from a particular
standpoint, even Deva-s etc. are asuras:

अथेदानीमविद्वन्निन्दार्थोऽयं मन्त्र आरभ्यते —

असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसा वृताः ।
तांस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ ३ ॥
*असुर्याः परमात्मभावमद्वयमपेक्ष्य देवादयोऽप्यसुराः । *तेषां च स्वभूता लोका
असुर्याः नाम । नामशब्दोऽनर्थको निपातः । ते लोकाः कर्मफलानि लोक्यन्ते
दृश्यन्ते भुज्यन्त इति जन्मानि । अन्धेन अदर्शनात्मकेनाज्ञानेन तमसा आवृताः
आच्छादिताः । तान् स्थावरान्तान् , प्रेत्य त्यक्त्वेमं देहम् अभिगच्छन्ति
यथाकर्म यथाश्रुतम् । ये के च आत्महनः आत्मानं घ्नन्तीत्यात्महनः । के ? ते
जनाः येऽविद्वांसः । कथं ते आत्मानं नित्यं हिंसन्ति ? अविद्यादोषेण
विद्यमानस्यात्मनस्तिरस्करणात् । विद्यमानस्यात्मनो यत्कार्यं
फलमजरामरत्वादिसंवेदनादिलक्षणम् , तत् हतस्येव तिरोभूतं भवतीति प्राकृता
अविद्वांसो जना आत्महन इत्युच्यन्ते । तेन ह्यात्महननदोषेण संसरन्ति ते ॥
He contrasts those in ignorance with the ones that have transcended
ignorance by knowing the Atman whose nature is stated in the next mantra:
यस्यात्मनो हननादविद्वांसः संसरन्ति, तद्विपर्ययेण विद्वांसो
मुच्यन्तेऽनात्महनः, तत्कीदृशमात्मतत्त्वमित्युच्यते —

अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयो नैनद्देवा आप्नुवन्पूर्वमर्षत् ।
तद्धावतोऽन्यानत्येति तिष्ठ—त्तस्मिन्नपो मातरिश्वा दधाति ॥ ४ ॥

Also how about the 'Da Da Da' teaching in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad,
that Brahma/Prajapati gave out to the Asuras, Devas and humans:

For Asuras - Dayadhvam, be compassionate.  For Devas - Daamyata,  regulate
your sense-gratification. For humans: Engage in charity.

Here the Upanishad itself implies that Devas who are much above humans, are
steeped in sense pleasures. Naturally this implies body-attachment. So,
Shankara's Kena bhashya observation is not out of place. In fact the
Bh.Gita 16 chapter Aasuri sampat verses can be applied to the condition of
the Deva-s here.

warm regards
subbu


> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
>