CC daily 123 – M 6.175 – tat tvam asi is a statement of direction not conclusion

Thank you Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Chapter 6, Text 175 Tattvamasi Jeevahetu Pradeshika Vakya Pranavana Manitareka He Mahavakya So now Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is in the section deploying the strategy of Mahavakya to defeat the impersonalist conclusions and there are some sentences some short statements from the Upanishads which Shankaracharya designated as Mahavakya and one of the most common which of those Mahavakya which is used to equate the Atma with the Brahman is Tattvamasi so Chaitanya Mahaprabhu now addresses that and he says that Tattvamasi yes it is a statement given in scripture and it is important Jeevahetu Pradeshika Vakya Jeevahetu he says so Jeevahetu means it is meant to direct the living entity towards higher spiritual reality but Pranavana Manitareka He Mahavakya so what is meant as a direction is made into a conclusion by the strategy of the impersonalist interpretation that is done by Shankara now what the let me understand and try to understand what is happening here Tattvamasi is a statement which at first glance seems to support the idea that Tatt that that something is there what is that that you can say refers to the absolute truth Brahman you you are Atma Tattvamasi so such a statement can be said to mean that you are the supreme Atma you the Atma are the supreme the Brahman and in this way you are lord you are the absolute truth so this is how this statement can be said to support impersonalism by the impersonalist interpretation but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is explaining that this statement is not a statement of identity but of quality so that means this statement is meant to not directly state that we are in all respects one with Brahman but that here Brahman it refers to the supreme absolute truth not that we are in all respects one with Brahman but that we are in quality one with Brahman that means we are actually qualitatively the same as Brahman Tattvamasi you are that that means you are also of the same spiritual nature as that absolute truth don't identify with matter don't try to enjoy matter try to activate your spiritual understanding and that is how you will move towards progress and liberation and now to apply this to be able to realize this one's own spiritual nature and to harmonize the supreme spiritual reality the best way is to practice Bhakti this is all taught in scripture ultimately but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is saying that what Shankara does is Tattvamasi which is meant to indicate or direct the living entity towards an awareness of its spiritual nature that Shankara has made into a Mahavakya and Om Namani and they do not give the proper respect that is due for Om Om Namani and this way they what they offer is a misleading conclusion and it is this misleading conclusion that actually what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is going to critique Tattvamasi is a subject which the import of this verse has been a matter of intense discussion debate and dialectics among the personals and the impersonals so Tattvamasi this at the very least talks about some kind of connection between this and that now what this refers to what that refers to or between you and that so that much is clear so now if we were in all senses one with the absolute truth then the standard question that come up is ok then how would the absolute truth ever come under illusion how could illusion become so influential as to cover the absolute truth or even if you say that elements of part of the absolute truth but the absolute truth is not supposed to have any part at all so how could a fragment of absolute truth be cut off from the absolute truth and come under illusion and more importantly if you consider it from the context of other mahalakyas like Sarvam Kalmamidam Brahma then if everything is Brahma then where did illusion at all come from so first the impersonalists try to impose their philosophy on scripture and when the philosophy is not imposable on scripture in the sense that there are many statements which they find do not gel with their philosophy then they try to subordinate those majority scriptural statements by using the strategy of Anuvakya Mahavakya but Shri Adan Mahaprabhu is critiquing that strategy here by saying even if we accept that strategy that there are certain statements like Mahavakya then why should the statement like Tattvamasti be considered Mahavakya, why not Om this is like taking the wind out of the sails of the opponent because the impersonalists do respect Om, Om is central to all the Vedic mantras and Om is also a constant mantra used for meditation, frequent mantra used for meditation by the impersonalists too so Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by proposing Om as the Mahavakya has taken the steam out of the sails of the impersonalists and as we will see in a continued state by stating that actually the point of our discussion here is that impersonalist interpretation although we can give some straight arguments and point out how impersonalism is wrong but Shri Adan Mahaprabhu is going deeper and not just pointing based on logic how impersonalism is inadequate as an explanation for reality but he is going deeper and stating how it does not reflect the teaching of scripture also properly it means the impersonalism can be logically problematized and it can be scripturally problematized and in the context of the discussion with Shri Adan Mahaprabhu which is a discussion about the true import of Vedanta Sutra or as the CC calls it Vyasa Sutra so in that context Shri Adan Mahaprabhu focuses on scripture and then brings out logical points or logical inconsistencies or scriptural inconsistencies between the conclusion of impersonalists and the statements of scripture so here he says Om Manamani rather than accepting Om to be the Mahavakya why has Tattvamasti be considered Mahavakya Tattvamasti is explained rather than saying you are that as a statement of absolute identity the Vaishnavas explain that you are that refers to a statement of quality so it's a statement of similarity and quality not a statement about sameness of identity because there are many other scriptural statements which talk about how our identity is also eternal as in the Bhagavad Gita itself Krishna says are my parts and they are parts eternal and further so in 2.12 Krishna says that all these things I, you and all these things we are all going to we are all existing existing eternally we existed in the past we exist now and we will exist in the future so Krishna is talking about not just existence in future but about personal existence in future because I, you and kings these things they are all different distinct persons and all of them are going to continue to exist so the point is that Tattvamasti if it is taken as a statement of absolute identity between the Atma and Brahman then the many statements about the eternality of Atma as a distinct person they get they get falsified and scripture cannot scripture gives us truth and when same scripture seems to be taking some contradictory to our conception of the truth that is our conception of truth that needs to be revised not that scripture needs to be changed so Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is pointing out here that Tattvamasti is Pradeshika it is, it is meant to be indicated just like you use a pointing finger to point in a particular direction similarly Tattvamasti you are that that this is a statement which is meant to point the living entity towards the absolute truth, the spiritual master points to the living entity, points to the absolute truth you are that Tattvamasti so when it says like this it does not imply that your destination is to merge completely into that absolute truth, that is a subsequent interpretation of the verses all that Tattvamasti states is that there is a relationship between you and that absolute truth and you should learn to identify with that absolute truth and now we identify with Krishna not by aiming to become Krishna but by aiming to become Krishna's like when two lovers are intensely in love they may say we two are one when they say we two are one that oneness is in emotion, it is not in existence there is a sweet attunement in their desires and mutual understanding of each other that the two lovers may act as one unit but that does not mean that they merge into one person, they are two persons who are harmonized and united and synergized by love similarly Tattvamasti does not necessarily have to have import of identity in identity or of having of identical identity because there are statements which clearly talk about the diversity in the identity so to reconcile them Tattvamasti has to be seen in the light of other statements and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that this is Pradeshik, it is meant to indicate the absolute truth towards the Atma towards the spiritual reality towards the absolute truth and Om on the other hand is the statement which gives the true import of what the conclusion of scripture is and it is that which we should try to understand we will continue this discussion.