As the Brahman Paramatma Bhagavan are referred to in the Gita 6.28-30 then how are these terms not referred to in the Vedic texts?

Question from Panchipanda Prabhu. You mentioned in your earlier classes that the Bhagavatam, words about Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagwan, Brahmeti, Paramatma doesn’t clearly say that what a particular manifestation refers to.
What is the meaning of Brahman? What is the Paramatma? But then in your classes, you also mentioned in your Gita classes, you mentioned that 6.28 refers to Brahman, 6.29 refers to Paramatma and 6.30 refers to Bhagwan. So then what does it exactly mean when we say that the Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagwan conceptions are not clearly and distinctively mentioned in the Vedic scriptures? Answer, the conceptions are mentioned, the specific terms that are used to refer to those conceptions are not always used to refer only to those conceptions. To understand this difference between terms and concepts.
Concepts are mental, terms are verbal. So actually the three conceptions of the absolute truth, the absolute truth of the all-pervading Brahman, the absolute truth of the indwelling Lord in the heart, the absolute truth as the transcendental person. These conceptions are there in theistic thought throughout the world.
They are not just within Vedic society. They may not be so distinctive, but the idea at least of an all-pervading spirit and of a transcendental person. These two are there in various religions, various spiritual traditions.
So, and these are there in the Vedic scriptures also. So it’s not that the conceptions are not there. The specific reference to those conceptions by those terms alone, that is not there.
For example, even in the Bhagavad Gita 6.28, 29, 30, if we understand what is the conception, then we will understand that, okay, this verse is referring to Brahman, this verse is referring to Paramatman, this verse is referring to Bhagavan. But Krishna himself doesn’t label it as Krishna. Here I’m talking about Brahman, here I’m talking about Paramatman, I’m talking about Bhagavan.
So ultimately terms, all terms are used by, used within scriptures and by the people to refer to conceptions that are internal. So now the meanings of words are not just frozen in some transcendental space. Meanings of words are also contextual.
The same word can mean different things in different contexts. So even in English we will see sometimes some words have some general meaning. For example, we may have the word transformer.
So now transformer in a general sense can refer to anything that does transformation. But in a technical sense, it refers to electric transformer. So that means words can have many meanings and in some technical context they may have specific meanings.
So like that, the word Brahman, Paramatman, Bhagavan can have different meanings. The word Brahman doesn’t always have to refer to Brahmajyoti. It can refer even to the absolute truth and the personal aspect of the absolute truth also.
So just like in a generic sense, a transformer can be any object that transforms and in a specific sense, technical sense, it is an electric transformer. Similarly, the word Brahman can in a genetic sense refer to the absolute truth and any aspect of the absolute truth. Whereas in a specific sense, within the way the terms are defined within Gaudiya Vaishnavism by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Jiva Goswami, Brahman refers to the all-pervading effulgence, impersonal spirit.
And same way Bhagavan also, the word Bhagavan at a generic level can have many meanings. For example, the Bhagavan can refer to any personality who is devoted to Bhagavan. That’s why Bhagavan, Narad Muni can also be called Bhagavan, Shiva can also be called Bhagavan.
But then, in the Bhagavatsandarbha, Jiva Goswami says, now we are going to establish that the subject of the Srimad Bhagavatam is Bhagavan. Now we may say, why do you need to establish that? That is straightforward. Bhagavatam is about Bhagavan.
No, but before that he has explained that when he uses the word Bhagavan in that book, he is referring to a specific definition of that word. As a transcendental person, filled with opulences, as the highest reality, from whom the impersonal Brahman comes, impersonal effulgence comes. So, that means now he will be explaining that this particular definition of the term Bhagavan is what is being referred to, that Bhagavan when it is being referred to in the Bhagavatam, and Bhagavatam will talk about this particular conception of the absolute truth.
So, therefore, to summarize, there are terms and there are concepts. And the relationship between terms and concepts is not always fixed universally. So, what we are saying is that for clarity of understanding, within each school of thought, when certain terms are correlated with certain concepts, then it becomes easier to understand.
So, it is not that the Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan conceptions are created by Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Those conceptions are there within the Vedic thought. And they are there in general theistic thought also, at least the personal and impersonal conceptions of the absolute truth.
But what is specifically done by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas is that these conceptions are given specific terms in a technical sense. And by that, what is being referred to in a particular discussion becomes clear. So, in the Bhagavad Gita, when we read 6.28, 29, 30, we can clearly see that there is an evolution of understanding over there.
And then if we apply the three terms that are referred to in Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, then we can see that this is referring to Brahman, this is referring to Paramatma, this is referring to Bhagavan. But those terms themselves may not be used in that