When Bhagavatam is the commentary on Vedanta-sutra, why do Advaitins still study Vedanta-sutra
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Hare Krishna. Question from Prathamesh Prabhu. Since Srimad Bhagavatam is a commentary on the Vedanta, why do Advaitins insist on studying the Vedanta? Answer, just because one book is there as a commentary, that does not mean that the original book should no longer be studied.
So that's the first point and secondly, although it is said in the Garuda Purana and in the Srimad Bhagavatam itself as well as in several other places that the Bhagavatam is a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. It is a natural commentary. It is not a literal commentary.
That means literal commentary means just like if we have Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as it is, there is Sanskrit words of the Gita and then there is commentary on it. So the Veda Bhagavatam is not like that. It is not taking a Vedanta Sutra and then explaining it and next Sutra and explaining it.
It is a natural commentary. It's like say suppose a speaker gave a class yesterday evening and then it was a class where there was less time and spoke briefly but then today morning there was more time and that speaker spoke on the same topic in detail. Now it's not that the speaker is going to take say the same sentence and explain it over here, next sentence and explain it over here.
So the Bhagavatam and Vedanta Sutra, the correlation is like that. So that's why because the impersonalists, they do not see a direct correlation between the Bhagavatam and the Vedanta and because they do not necessarily accept the, the Vaishnava sampradayas have accepted that Bhagavatam is a commentary on the Vedanta but they don't necessarily accept that as the only authority or the final authority. So that's why they also comment on the Vedanta Sutra and it's not that they alone comment.
Vaishnavas also comment. So we have to understand that scripture is used for, by different schools of thought to promote their own school of thought. So whichever book supports their school of thought, they'll use it and others they'll subordinate it.
So that's why now if we see Shankaracharya, he emphasized those Upanishadic passages which supported his philosophy and he subordinated all of the others saying that actually there is Mahavakya and then there is Laghuvakya. Everything else is lower level knowledge. So this sort of strategy even is used.
So that's why they focus on Vedanta because Vedanta, they can interpret it to support their philosophy much better than using Bhagavatam for that. But when an impersonal is founded, Bhagavatam has also become very popular and people want to hear the Bhagavatam. Then they have tried to comment on the Bhagavatam also.
So it is not that the Bhagavatam makes the Vedanta Sutra redundant. That has not happened for Vaishnavas also. So that's why we have Baldevidya Bhushan also commented on the Vedanta Sutra and taught his Govinda Bhashya.
So the natural commentary on the, when we say the Bhagavatam is a natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, that essentially means that we can get the Bhagavatam in an accessible and releasable form in the Vedanta Sutra. But that does not mean that the Bhagavatam is meant to replace Vedanta Sutra entirely. And our Vaishnava Acharyas, for those who want to see how the Vaishnava Siddhanta is based on Shastra and the Acharyas have explained it not only based on Bhagavatam but also based on Vedanta Sutra also.
That's what Govinda Bhashya commentary of Vedanta Sutra does. So the natural commentary means that once we have accepted the authority of the Bhagavatam, then if we have some residual questions about should I study Vedanta Sutra also? Yes, in a very advanced stage, when we have studied all the foundational books, we can study Vedanta Sutra if we want to. But we should know that the same Vedanta Sutra is available to us in an accessible and releasable way for us as the sweet conversations of the Bhagavatam.
Thank you. Hare Krishna.