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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

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.