chAndogya upaniSad 1.1.8 and 8.3.5

[DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA]

At 02:02 PM 10/4/97 -0500, John Robert Gardner wrote:
>It brings to mind the question of "subaltern" (I use the term--if
>possible--generically rather than politically) voices in the shruti.  I
>can hardly resist offering Aitareya AAraNyaka 2.1.5:
>
>tatsatyaM saditi prANastItyannaM
>
>(note mss. variances here-- tItyannayam [from a mss. of the Aaa complete,
>c. late 18th c, bundled with gRhya and shrauta suutras], and tItyannaryama
>[from two mss. of c. 1700 and mid- 18th. c; in grantha characters with no
>additioanl bundled texts])
>
>yamityasAvAdityastadetattrivRttrivRdiva vai chkSuH shuklaM kRSNaM
>kanIniketi | sa yadi ha vA api mRSA vadati satyaM haivAsyoditaM bhavati ya
>evametatsatyasya satyatvaM veda
>
>regarding the creations of days, and presence of deities within and
>outside the body, the translation by Keith reads:
>
>That is sattya.  For sat is breath, ti is food, yam is yonder sun.  That
>is threefold.  Threefold as it were is the eye, white, dark, and the the
>pupil.  Even though he speaks falsely, yet speaks he truth who thus knows
>why truth is sattya.
>
>Keith notes : This doctrine undoubtedly shows the moral disadvantages of
>the doctrine of salvation by knowledge, and it is the precursor of the
>later immunity from moral censure of teh jIvanmukta. (p. 207, n6.)
>

The same is put in a different way in Chandogya 5.5.1

        "prathamOttamE akSarE satyam madhyatO~nRtam tadEtadanRtamubhyatah
satyEna parigRhItam satyabhUyamEva bhavati, nainam vidvansamanRtam hinasti."

As far as Keith's comment is concerned, we Hindus consider that
a jIvanmukta cannot be judged by ordinary mortals and their laws.
This may sound very odd to western minds. But that is that.

sarma.