Why is the Vedanta-sutra not as clear as the Bhagavatam when both deal with the same subject?

From: panca pandava

prji what is the difference between vedanta sutra and srimad bhagvatam, if they are similar means that in S.B. it is very clear krishna is the supreme personality of godhead, why in vedantra sutra is not very clear.

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
What is in our control Question from Panchpanda Prabhu What is the difference between Vedanta Sutra and Srimad Bhagavatam If they are similar, means that Answer Srimad Bhagavatam Is the natural commentary On the Vedanta Sutra As Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has explained to us Now It is not A normal commentary In the conventional sense of the word In which Say one verse is taken And an elaboration of that verse is given And the next verse is taken And its elaboration is given So Because It is not exactly like that So the relationship between them Is a little more difficult To trace out With our particular vision If we look at How these Two documents historically evolved In the sense of How the Tradition understands the history to be Then that will give us a clearer idea Of What the Contexts Purposes and messages Of these two documents are The Vedanta Sutra Is a combination Or a reconciliation Of the Various schools of thought That had Developed At that time In India Which were the six systems of philosophy And Primarily along with some other philosophies That were there And the Vedanta Sutra shows how The Vedanta Which is the sixth system of philosophy Is the culmination among all systems And how it gives the Highest and the most conclusive understanding So this is the Essential message and purpose of the Vedanta Sutra That It is very terse Very brief Very heavy in its Logical argumentation And so concise That it is almost To the point of Obscurity So it is actually Meant for people Who are debating What is the essential conclusion Of the Vedic And Especially the Upanishadic Books So therefore If you visualize a culture In which people are Intimately And Constantly Immersed in some books And then Based on those books They are having some discussion About what is the essential meaning of those books So imagine a group of surgeons Who Are discussing what is the best Way to do the surgery for a particular patient And all of them Know all the various surgical procedures And their complications And their pros and cons So they When they have their conversation They will Be assuming That The others in the conversation Already know a lot And they will just imagine In this surgery this problem might come up And if this happens This happens Now they may not even mention there What is the exact type of surgery So for an Outsider if he suddenly Responds to that conversation It will be next to impossible for him to understand What are these people Talking about Because first he has to know All the various methods of surgery That are there at that time Then he has to know What is the specific problem With the patient and then What are the various complications That can result When certain surgeries are applied On certain patients So even when One doctor rejects another doctor’s proposal He will understand That the doctor understands The whole subject quite well And he will just give a very brief reason to refute So We will not be able to understand practically anything In that conversation Similarly When the Vedanta Sutra is discussing At that time it assumes That those Who are its readers Already know the Upanishads All the Mukhya Upanishads Thoroughly And then they are discussing Okay This particular verse from this particular Upanishad What is its meaning Now in the Vedanta Sutra actually That verse is also not given Most of the times So that means the author of the Vedanta Sutra Assumes that This debate is so prominent In the minds of people That As soon as he starts Referring to the issues of the debate The pros and cons of the debate And immediately people will know What is the context of the debate And what are the Aspects of the debate That are presumed to be known by them So therefore the Vedanta Sutra is practically Incomprehensible Without the aid of the commentators Who are the Acharyas Who have Lived in the context Of the culture which is being talked about In the Vedanta Sutra And who elaborate on what are the meanings Of the Various arguments based on what are the Contexts that are being referred to So therefore Although the Vedanta Sutra is very terse Overall The context from the Upanishads That are being referred to over there Are very much Agreed upon by the Various commentators What is debated upon is What is the Essential meaning of those contexts And what is the meaning Of the Sutra And What it ultimately refers to based on The way it is given interpretation of those Upanishadic contexts So because of the Assumption of a huge amount Of pre-existing knowledge In the part of the readers The Vedanta Sutra is practically Incomprehensible to most people And that is why The essential conclusion Of Krishna as the Supreme Personality Of Godhead is not Evident to us in our Mortal lives or in our Conditioned brains On the other hand The same author who wrote Vedanta Sutra And who thought that after writing Vedanta Sutra I have arrived at the conclusion Of Vedic wisdom because Vedanta Is the absolute truth According to the sixth school of thought So What does that Vedanta ultimately refer to That is actually Taught in the Srimad Bhagavatam because after He wrote the Vedanta Sutra Still he was not satisfied And because he was not satisfied Then Narada Muni told him to write the Bhagavatam So All the Arguments in the Vedanta Sutra They assume the knowledge Of the context In which the arguments are being fought And they assume a very high level of Knowledge in the part of the reader To both know the Previous context in which the arguments Are taking place and to also know The Interpretation of the Arguments the Vedanta Sutra gives And because All this is not known to most people In Kali Yuga and especially In our modern times Therefore We just can’t Comprehend the Vedanta Sutra and we cannot see In the Vedanta Sutra clearly How Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead But in the Srimad Bhagavatam Vyasadeva Taking to heart The Advice given by Narada Muni Focuses wholeheartedly On trying to Consistently and explicitly glorify Krishna So The natural commentary means that The same author is deliberating On what he spoke earlier But it is not in terms of a Words by words commentary Just as If a person gives a class today And then the audience finds that this class Is of very high level So the audience requests Please can you explain what you spoke today Tomorrow And the speaker will say yes I can explain it But When I explain it It is not that I am going to play a recording of what I spoke Today and take the sentence One by one and explain those sentences No I will find a more Alternative way that is Clearer And easier for the comprehension Of the audience To convey the same set of concepts that I have taught Today So the same Strategy applies to Vyasadeva Vyasadeva wrote the Vedanta Sutra But then he found that not only was it Too difficult for most people to understand It was not very devotionally uplifting or satisfying Even for himself And so he took the same issue That is Vedanta The end of the Vedas As Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam describe Vyasadeva Paramita is what Bhagavatam says Vedaisya Sarvairaham Vedya Is what Krishna says In the Bhagavad Gita So he made that Same conclusion very explicitly clear This is how The Srimad Bhagavatam Is an elaboration on what Sri Vyasadeva said In the Vedanta Sutra And this is the reason why Srimad Bhagavatam Makes the message of Krishna’s supremacy Very explicitly clear Whereas it is not clear in the Vedanta Sutra Thank you