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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Subbu ji
Is there any sUtra from mImAmsA "Chandasi kAla-aniyamAt" - since the same
phrase occurs repeatedly.

Om
Raghav

On Tue, 28 Jan, 2025, 11:46 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Here are some more examples for the rule from Shankara himself stating it
> explicitly and others too:
>
> कठोपनिषद्भाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःचतुर्थी वल्लीमन्त्र १ - भाष्यम्
> ………; इत्यात्मशब्दव्युत्पत्तिस्मरणात् । तं प्रत्यगात्मानं स्वस्वभावम् ऐक्षत्
> अपश्यत् पश्यतीत्यर्थः, छन्दसि कालानियमात् ।
>
> न्यायनिर्णयव्याख्या
> ………व्यवहारभूमावद्धा साक्षाद्वेद । को वा तत्प्रावोचत । छान्दसो दैर्घ्यलोपः
> छन्दसि कालानियमात् । ब्रह्म प्रब्रूयादित्यर्थः ।
>
> न्यायनिर्णयव्याख्या
> ………मनआदिव्यापारेषु संयोजनान्यथानुपपत्त्याऽपि न क्रियाशेषत्वं
> मनश्चिदादीनामित्यर्थः । तेऽग्नयो विदुषा मनसैवाधीयन्ताधियन्ते छन्दसि
> कालानियमात् ।
>
> वेदान्तकल्पतरुः
> ………मृत्योर्वचनम् । कः अद्धा साक्षाद्वेद ब्रह्म को वा प्रावोचत् छन्दसि
> कालानियमात् प्रब्रूयादित्यर्थः ।
>
> The past tense in the Upanishad is explained to mean future tense. Or past
> tense in the Upanishad is explained in the present tense.
>
> Thanks Krishna Kashyap for raising the question as it helped us discover
> this.
>
> Regards
> subbu
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2025, 10:03 pm V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>