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

[Krishna Kashyap]

Having said this,
I have no clue of Ananda Giri or some other Teeka of this Kena Upanishad.
Hence kindly educate me if I am wrong.

*Best Regards,*

*Krishna Kashyap*




On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 6:27 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashyap2011 at gmail.com>
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
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>