How can we say that the Garuda Purana verse glorifying the Bhagavatam refers certainly to Bhagavatam as we have it (and not pre-edited version written by Vyasadeva)?

From Kanai Krishna P

I heard your answer to a question about Bhagavatam being natural commentary on Vedanta Sutra. There’s a famous reference from Garuda Purana which says ‘arthoyam brahmasutranam…'(quoted in CC Madhya 25.143-144)This reference speaks of number of verses in Bhagavatam as 18000. Can we say that this reference is certainly speaking of Bhagavatam as we have it(and not pre-edited version written by Vyasadeva)?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question from Kanai Krishna Prabhu. I heard your answer to a question about Bhagavatam being natural commentary on Vedanta Sutra.
There is a famous reference from Garuda’s Puran which says, Arthoyam Brahma Sutranam, quoted in CC Madhyam 25-143-44. This reference speaks of a number of verses in Bhagavatam as 18,000. Can we say that this reference is certainly speaking of Bhagavatam as we have it and not pre-edited version written by Vyasadeva? Answer, the final Bhagavatam as we have it is giving the essential import of the Vedanta Sutra.
This is what was written by Vyasadeva after his discussion with Narada Muni as described in the 4th, 5th and 6th chapters of the 1st Canto and this which actually is the primary focus of the Vedic literature in terms of it being written in the maturity of full spiritual realization by Vyasadeva. So, the pre-edited Bhagavatam version is practically not referred to much anywhere and the concept of the editing of the Bhagavatam is something which is inferred by Racharyas based on the understanding that the 18 Puranas include the Bhagavat Puran and yet it is said that after writing the 18 Puranas Vyasadeva was not satisfied and then wrote the Bhagavat Puran. That means, what he did was, he brought out the pure devotional essence and the as the 4th chapter describes, the pure unalloyed glories, unadulterated, undiluted glories of Lord Hari were brought out in this Bhagavatam and what Vyasadeva wrote prior to his full spiritual maturity, that would not be considered a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra because the Vedanta Sutra is the final word and something which is written before that will not be considered as a final word.
So, the Vedanta Sutra is the conclusive word and actually after writing Vedanta Sutra, when he is not satisfied then he brings out the import of the Vedanta Sutra in a more clear and explicitly devotional way in the Bhagavat Puran. So, by considering the point logically and chronologically, logically, that it is what he has written in his full spiritual maturity after he is not satisfied with writing the Vedanta Sutra, that which he will write after that will be an Artha, will be a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. So, from the logical point of view, what is written in his full maturity will be the actual commentary on the Vedanta Sutra and from the chronological point of view, that actual commentary on the Vedanta Sutra would not have been written before the Vedanta Sutra is written and the Vedanta Sutra is written after the Vedic literature are written and that includes the writing of the Puranas.
So, that means, the 18th Purana written, the Vedanta Sutra is written, still he stays unsatisfied and then he writes the he writes the Bhagavat Puran. So, in that way, when we want to talk about chronology, we have to keep one point very much in consideration that actually these literature are eternal and they are transcendental and they are manifest at particular times. So, when they are manifest at particular times, that is something just like Avatar is there, which is eternal, but is manifest at a particular time.
So, just as Chaitanya Mahapurush is meant to be Achanna Avatar, but there are telltale references to his divinity, even within the Vedic literature. Although there are no explicit references to ensure that his purpose, Achanna Avatar is not not impeded, still there are some telltale references, small telltale references. So, like that, although this Bhagavatam is the last book written, we may wonder how can there be references to the glory of this Bhagavatam in books that were written before that.
But that is a part of Vyasadeva himself, the literary incarnation of the Lord and he, in one sense, is performing a leela when he is saying that he is unsatisfied and Vyasadeva makes him satisfied. But even within the Vedic literature, in their own natural development of thought, there are telltale signs dropped of the supremacy of the Bhagavatam, so that for people who are who want some authorization of the Bhagavatam, not just from its self-evident glory of the purity and the loftiness of its message, but also from some external sources within the Vedic canon. So, it is arranged by the Lord that there are some telltale signs like this verse from the Garuda Purana which refers to the glory of the Srimad Bhagavatam as being a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
Thank you.