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.

Sorry, the passage is not from Chandogya 5.5.1 but Brahadaranyaka 5.5.1.
Error is regretted.

sarma.