Dear Shri Narayanan,
I do not understand what benefit it will be for anyone to "reflect on the **ego** of Yajnavalkya when he asked the king to send the 1000 cows to his home, even before the start of the debate appearing in the BrihadAranyaka upaniSad or on the anger and impatience of vAjashrava in giving his own son Nachiketa to yamA as mentioned in kaThOpaniSad." Obviously, all the characters Yajnavalkya, Vajasharavas and Nachiketa form part of story-telling and only those who are mentally ready to accept them as true persons who have lived in flesh & blood, will think of them as anything more relevant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I bolded the part which I tend to agree with. Let me add some further comments to make even a stronger statement.
Stories in Upanishads are more like 'containers' for real teaching passages that follow. Focusing on them is like a child arguing over the names of fictitious character used in describing a mathematics problem.
Such stories have nothing to do with history . Neither are they written to communicate some moral teaching as in a Panchatantra stories.
Only a Samsari will "see" ego of a supposedly enlightened character described in such stories.
Anyone who is true enlightened will never claim they know Brahman. Such a claim itself will discredit the understanding itself.
Let me quote two relevant Kenopanishad verses that makes the above point
नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च |
यो नस्तद्वेद तद्वेद नो न वेदेति वेद च ||२||
यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः |
अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ||३||
Verse 2: I do not think 'I know it well' . But not that I do not know, I know too. Who among us comprehend It both as 'not known' and as 'known' - he comprehends it
Verse 3:
He understands It who comprehends It not! and he understands It not who feels he has comprehended It. It is unknown to the Master of True Knowledge but to the ignorant It is known
Even in the story in question, there no one in the King's court that claims that they are enlightened. This is not out of fear or humility. Please see the bolder part above.
Yajnavalkya simply says he bows to all the enlightened people in the court and wants to take the cows because he likes them. That starts the Q&A. Bringing ego of anyone in the picture is meaningless in this context.
A samsari cannot understand a truly enlightened person by observing them or their actions. They are as remote to a Samasari's mind as the descriptions of (Nirguna) Brahman itself to the mind, which it cannot comprehend. This point can be understood with proper and extensive background and hence is a major topic area. Therefore I will close by citing a verse in B.Gita where Sri Krishna makes the same point (without explanation) by using a nice metaphor.
या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी ।
यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः ॥
The above was part of response to Arjuna's question as to how a Sthitapragnya (enlightened person which is a English term I used in this post) interacts with the world. The use of the metaphor of being awake and sleeping in the context of day and night is very apt. Ignorance (of truth) and knowledge is like day and night and cannot co-exist.
It is not possible for a samsari driven by ignorance and ego to observe the actions of an enlightened person and learn from those actions. There is lot more to the above verse but it does make a point that one cannot draw conclusions about ego of an enlightened person. Such conclusions reflect more about the ego the concluder and not of the enlightened person (who does have residual ego for functioning in the world).
