CC daily 122 – M 6.174 – Lord Chaitanya turns the impersonalist strategy of maha-vakya on impersonalists

Chaitanya Charitamrita Maddalena 6.174 Pranavaya Mahavakya Ishwara Ram Murthy Pranavahite Sarva Veda Jagad Upati Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is here point by point refuting Mayavad and she is explaining how the conclusions or the interpretations of Shankara about what the conclusion of the Vedanta Sutra is, those interpretations are misleading so the one argument he addresses now is about Mahavakya Shankaracharya in his attempt to try to bring about a harmony within the teachings within the various statements of Shruti of the Upanishads had to adopt some hermeneutical strategy to do away with the statements which did not agree with his philosophy hermeneutics is the art of interpreting scripture or studying, understanding scripture hermeneutical strategy means the strategy used to understand or explain scripture in a particular way so Shankaracharya wanted to establish a particular conclusion the conclusion is that the absolute truth is non-dual is impersonal and for that purpose to try to establish his conclusion as something coming from scripture he needed to interpret scripture and because although there are some statements in scripture which can be which can be said to be giving an impersonalist import but there are many other statements which are clearly personalist there are many statements in scripture which clearly signify devotion the glory of devotion even the eternality of devotion and eternality of devotion implies the eternality of the lord and the eternality of the devotee so when such is the case that the lord and the devotee there are so many statements in scripture which talk about the eternality of bhakti the eternality of bhagwan the eternality of the bhakta then how can the statements how can those statements be neglected or rejected so to address this problem Shankaracharya came up with the strategy of classifying scripture into Mahavakya and Laghu Vakya so the concept is he divided scripture teaching into Parmarthik and Yavaharik that which talks about ultimate reality and that which talks about operational reality practical or operational reality and he says in operational sense there is duality oh yes I am there you are there and I and you are different so you we are there and Ishwar is there and we are different and we are going to devote ourselves to him but ultimately we understand we are Ishwar and we go beyond bhakti that is the Parmarthik level according to Shankaracharya’s interpretation so now those statements which talk about bhakti about the eternality of bhakti about the glory of bhakti those according to Shankaracharya refer to the Yavaharik reality and most of statements he classified as the Laghu Vakya Laghu means inferior lower and then as contrasted with Laghu Vakya there is the Mahavakya great statements and those statements in scripture which talk about the absolute truth being impersonal or which seem to convey that import he declared them as Mahavakya so for example I am Atma Brahma Pragyanam Brahma Sarvam Kalmayitam Brahma so he selected some statements like that and he declared these are the Mahavakya Mahavakya means these are the ultimate truth these are the supreme truth and his idea is that all of scripture should be interpreted in such a way that the truthfulness of these statements is maintained always and that begs the question how can such truthfulness be maintained if the concept of the absolute truth is itself repeatedly talked in scripture as being personal yes scripture does contain some impersonal references but scripture also contains an overwhelming number of personal references too so how can scripture be interpreted to say that it teaches impersonalism so for that purpose Shankara said that actually the impersonal statements which give the impersonal conclusion or support the impersonal conclusion that sort of statements he shortlisted and called them Mahavakya and everything that contradicts this he called as Laguvakya so now Ramanacharya in his various other works in which he critiques Advaitavada there he argues what is the basis for classifying scripture like this into Mahavakya and Laguvakya because it is very self serving whichever statements gel with one’s own philosophy one may call them as Mahavakya and those which don’t gel with philosophy one just rejects them as Laguvakya and in that way rather than letting scripture speak for itself we impose our conclusion of scripture and thus silence the voice of scripture from reaching the world for benefiting the world so now in the sadhaka’s practice of spiritual life it is vital that the sadhaka understand the eternality of Ishwar because only that understanding can inspire the sadhaka to beg for the shelter of the eternal, to beg for the shelter of the supreme Brahman and to get that shelter and thus be protected from the forces of illusion but when nationalism makes that Brahman who is the source of all shelter into an illusion whom is no longer the source of shelter but is simply a illusion that needs to be transcended and in that way it ends up committing great damage to the spiritual prospects of most souls and here Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is actually introducing is using the extreme strategy of Mahavakya against impersonalism by saying that that actual Mahavakya of scripture is something else it is not Aham Brahmasmi or I am Atma Brahma it is Om now it’s interesting that Om is often thought of as conveying an impersonal import and why would Chaitanya Mahaprabhu declare Om to be the Mahavakya wouldn’t that be like playing into the hands of the impersonalists no Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is making strategic inroads into impersonalism and into the impersonalist mindset of Sarvambhattacharya by presenting concepts in a way that is acceptable that will be acceptable to him Chaitanya Mahaprabhu directly says Krishna is the Bhagwan Sarvambhattacharya is the Mahavakya of scripture Sarvambhattacharya is not going to accept that but if you say that Om is the import ok ok that will make much greater sense because the word Om occurs far more frequently in scripture than does Aham Brahmasmi or I am Atma Brahma or any of the other statements and then after that he will go forward and he will say that Om what it actually signifies and gradually step by step Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is going to launch his attack on impersonal interpretations of Vedanta and establish a personal conclusion in this particular verse his strategy of turning the Mahavakya Mahavakya his strategy back on the impersonalist is being unfolded we will kind of see how this strategy is deployed in the future verses

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Chaitanya Charitamrita Maddalena 6.174 Pranava ye mahavakya Ishwara era murti Pranava haithe sarva vedha jagad utpatti Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is here point by point refuting Mayavad and He is explaining how the conclusions or the interpretations of Shankara about what the conclusion of the Vedanta Sutra is, those interpretations are misleading. So the one argument he addresses now is about Mahavakya. Shankaracharya in his attempt to try to bring about in harmony within the teachings, within the various statements of Shruti of the Upanishads had to adopt some hermeneutical strategy to do away with the statements which did not agree with his philosophy.

Hermeneutics is the art of interpreting scripture or studying, understanding scripture. Hermeneutical strategy means the strategy used to understand or explain scripture in a particular way. So Shankaracharya wanted to establish a particular conclusion.

The conclusion is that the absolute truth is non-dual, is impersonal and for that purpose, to try to establish his conclusion as something coming from scripture you need to interpret scripture and because although there are some statements in scripture which can be said to be giving an impersonalist import, but there are many other statements which are clearly personalist. There are many statements in scripture which clearly signify devotion, the glory of devotion, even the eternality of devotion and eternality of devotion implies the eternality of the Lord and the eternality of the devotee. So when such is the case that the Lord and the devotee are, when there are so many statements in scripture which talk about the eternality of bhakti, the eternality of Bhagwan, the eternality of the bhakta, then how can the statements, how can those statements be neglected or rejected? So to address this problem Shankaracharya came up with the strategy of classifying scripture into Mahavakya and Laghuvakya.

So the concept is as he divided scripture teaching, scriptural teaching itself into Parmarthik and Yavaharik, that which talks about ultimate reality and that which talks about operational reality, practical or operational reality and he says in operational sense there is duality. Oh yes, I am there, you are there and I and you are different. So we are there and Ishwar is there and we are different and we want to devote ourselves to him.

But ultimately we understand we are Ishwar and we go beyond bhakti. That is the Parmarthik level according to Shankara's interpretation. So now those statements which talk about bhakti, about the eternality of bhakti, about the glory of bhakti, those according to Shankara refer to the Yavaharik reality and most of statements he classified as the Laghuvakya.

Laghu means inferior, lower and then as contrasted with Laghuvakya, there is the Mahavakya, there is the great statements and those statements in scripture which talk about the absolute truth being impersonal or which seem to convey that import, he declared them as Mahavakya. So for example, Aham Brahmasmi, Ayamatma Brahma, Prajnanam Brahma, Sarvam Kalmidam Brahma. So he selected some statements like that and he declared that these are the Mahavakya.

Mahavakya means these are the ultimate truth. These are the supreme truth and his idea is that all of scripture should be interpreted in such a way that the truthfulness of these statements is maintained always and that begs the question how can such truthfulness be maintained if the concept of the absolute truth is itself repeatedly talked in scripture as being personal. Yes, scripture does contain some impersonal references but scripture also contains an overwhelming number of personal references too.

So how can scripture be interpreted to say that it teaches impersonalism. So for that purpose, Shankara said that actually the impersonal statements which give the impersonal conclusion or support the impersonal conclusion, that sort of statements, he shortlisted and called them Mahavakya and everything that contradicts this, he called as Laghuvakya. So now Ramanacharya in his Srivastava commentary as well as in his various other works in which he critiques Advaitavada, there he argues what is the basis for classifying scripture like this into Mahavakya and Laghuvakya because it is very self-serving.

Whichever statements gel with one's own philosophy, one may call them as Mahavakya and those which don't gel with one's own philosophy, one just rejects them as Laghuvakya and in that way, rather than letting scripture speak for itself, we impose our conclusion of scripture and thus silence the voice of scripture from reaching the world for benefiting the world. So now in the sadhaka's practice of spiritual life, it is vital that the sadhaka understand the eternality of Ishwar because only that understanding can inspire sadhaka to beg for the shelter of the eternal, to beg for the shelter of the supreme brahman and to get that shelter and thus be protected from the forces of illusion. But when nationalism makes that brahman who is the source of all shelter into an illusion whom is no longer the source of shelter but is simply an illusion that needs to be transcended and in that way it ends up committing great damage to the spiritual prospects of most souls and here Shaitan Mahaprabhu is actually introducing, is using the extreme strategy of Mahavakya against impersonalism by saying that actual Mahavakya of scripture is something else it is not Aham Brahmasmi or Ayamatma Brahma it is Om.

Now it's interesting that Om is often thought of as conveying an impersonal import and why would Shaitan Mahaprabhu declare Om to be the Mahavakya wouldn't that be like playing into the hands of the impersonalists no, Shaitan Mahaprabhu is making strategic inroads into impersonalism and into the impersonalist mindset of Sarvabhattacharya by presenting concepts in a way that is acceptable that will be acceptable to him so Shaitan Mahaprabhu directly says Krishna is the Bhagwan, Bhagwan is the Mahavakya of scripture Sarvabhattacharya is not going to accept that but if you say that Om is the import yeah because that will make much greater sense because the word Om occurs far more frequently in scripture than does Aham Brahmasmi or Ayamatma Brahma or any of the other statements and then after that he will go forward and he will say that Om what it actually signifies and gradually step by step Shaitan Mahaprabhu is going to launch his attack on impersonal interpretations of Vedanta and established a personal conclusion in this particular verse his strategy of turning the Mahavakya strategy back on the impersonalists is being unfolded we can see how this strategy is deployed in the future verses thank you.