It’s interesting to note that the Srimad Bhagavatam was compiled two times, first as one of the 18 original Puranas, compiled by Vyasadeva before the Mahabharata and later as the Srimad Bhagavatam we have today, with the help of Sukadeva Goswami and Suta Goswami.

The story was that after compiling all the Vedas, including the original Bhagavata Purana, the Mahabharata, and the Vedanta Sutra, Vyasadeva was still feeling dissatisfied, not having sufficiently described the glories of the Lord. At this point, Narada Muni appears and mildly chastises him for having given too much importance to indirect topics in his previous works, and not having written a book that exclusively glorifies Krsna. After that, Vyasadeva proceeded to compile the second version of the Srimad Bhagavatam, an expanded version of the original Bhagavata Purana he had compiled earlier.

This is explained by Srila Jiva Goswami in his Tattva-Sandarbha (verse 48):

“Suta Gosvami states this in the verse beginning sa-samhitam [Bhag. 1.7.8]. In this verse the phrase kṛtvanukramya (“after compiling and revising”) indicates that Vyasadeva first wrote Srimad Bhagavatam in an abbreviated form and that later on, after being instructed by Śri Narada Muni, He expanded and rearranged it. Thus two apparently contradictory statements are reconciled-one found here [in the Bhagavatam] saying that the Bhagavatam was composed after the Mahabharata, and the other found elsewhere [the Skanda Purana, Prabhasa- khanda 2.94], saying that the Mahabharata was compiled after the eighteen Puranas.”

This Srimad Bhagavatam compiled by Srila Vyasadeva was then spoken to Sukadeva Goswami, who explained it to Pariksit Maharaja. The way self-realized souls perceive spiritual knowledge is different from ours. We are limited to understanding spiritual knowledge in a theoretical way, using our intelligence, but we can’t directly perceive it. We may study the pastimes of Krsna in Vrindavana, for example, but we can’t directly see these pastimes. Self-realized souls, however, are connected to the spiritual reality, and they can directly see these pastimes. When Sukadeva Goswami received the Srimad Bhagavatam from Vyasadeva, he not only received a set of verses but as a direct vision of the pastimes described there. When he sat to narrate the Srimad Bhagavatam to Maharaja Pariksit, he didn’t just repeat the original verses compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, but directly described the pastimes based on his spiritual vision as a direct witness. Both Vyasadeva and Narada Muni were present, hearing his description, and both became amazed as if hearing the Srimad Bhagavatam for the first time.

“Suka” means parrot. It’s described that when a parrot bites a mango, it becomes even sweeter than originally. Similarly, Sukadeva Goswami was able to make the Srimad Bhagavatam even sweeter by his recitation, even though it was already relishable by all classes of men.

Suta Goswami was also present at the assembly, and he later narrated the Srimad Bhagavatam to the sages in Naimisharanya, also adding his contribution, in the form of the first and last cantos, as well as a few supplementary explanations along the text. This final version of the Srimad Bhagavatam was then commented on by many powerful acaryas through the centuries, culminating with the commentary of Srila Prabhupada, who studied all the previous works and wrote his commentary, adding all the important details. The Srimad Bhagavatam we have in our hands is thus the fruit of the contribution of many generations of powerful acaryas, starting with Vyasadeva himself. By studying it, we can directly associate with all these powerful personalities.

Another point to consider is that the Vedas are an extremely extensive mass of knowledge, that is available in toto only in the upper planets. Different parts of the Vedas and the Puranas appear and disappear on our planet over the course of time, repeatedly being lost, and then restablished by great sages or demigods, who make different parts of the knowledge again known.

In The Bhagavad-Gita (4.1-3) Krsna explains how He originally transmitted the Bhagavad-Gita to Vivasvān, but after many millions of years the line of succession had been broken, and thus he was transmitting it again to Arjuna, who was qualified to start a new disciplic line. Just like the Bhagavad-Gita, other portions of the Vedas exist eternally, but they become available of not in human society at different times.

At the end of Dwapara-Yuga, most of the Vedic knowledge had been forgotten, and thus Vyasadeva came to restore and organize this mass of knowledge, so it could become available to the people in Kali-Yuga.

Unfortunately, most of the original work of Vyasadeva is currently lost. We have access to just about 7% of the original verses compiled by him. However, this is not such a tragical loss as it may seem, because the Srimad Bhagavatam contains all the confidential meaning of the Vedas. Srila Vyasadeva wrote the Vedanta Sutra, giving the conclusions of the Vedas in a condensed form and the Srimad Bhagavatam is an elaboration of it. It’s not by chance that Srila Prabhupada spent so much of his effort writing his commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam, forecasting that his commentary would become the most prominent book of knowledge during the Golden Age predicted by Lord Caitanya.

Although lamentable, the fact that about 93% of the Vedic knowledge compiled by Vyasadeva was lost is actually not as tragic as it may seem, because the Srimad Bhagavatam includes all the important conclusions, that were made accessible to us by the commentaries of Srila Prabhupada. One who just studies and properly understands the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad-Gita as it as receives all the important conclusions and will be armed with all the tools to find his or her way back to Godhead. Other books offer additional details, that elaborate and reinforce such conclusions, but the Srimad Bhagavatam in itself is complete.

A widespread misconception is that different Vaishnava Acaryas like Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya were preaching different philosophies and were at odds with each other. Of course, technically the philosophy of Ramanujacarya is called Visistadvaita-vada and the philosophy of Madva is called Suddha-dvaitavada, just as the philosophy of Nimbarka is called Dvaitadvaita-vada and the philosophy of Vishnusvami is called Suddhadvaita-vada. There are differences in their explanations, but the point is that they all accept the same conclusion that the soul is an eternal servant of the Lord and the goal of life is to revive this forgotten relationship. They all came in order to uphold this highest principle, pulling people out of the grip of the Mayavada philosophy. For this, they had to explain certain points in different ways, according to what their followers could understand, and even made certain compromises.

When we study their teachings under the influence of the mode of passion, we pay more attention to the differences, and then it looks like they are at odds with each other. Certain authors make their careers writing books emphasizing these differences and pitting the acaryas against each other, but as we progress to the mode of goodness we eventually understand that they just use different words to describe the same absolute truth.

Vyasadeva did an incredibly complex and extensive work in compiling all the Vedas and teaching them to his disciples. However, in the end, he was feeling dissatisfied at heart. Normally, when we do some great service or even some important material work we feel very satisfied or even proud of ourselves, but that was not the case of Vyasadeva. He was feeling empty inside. Why?

“I have, under strict disciplinary vows, unpretentiously worshiped the Vedas, the spiritual masters and the altar of sacrifice. I have also abided by the rulings and have shown the import of disciplic succession through the explanation of the Mahābhārata, by which even women, śūdras and others [friends of the twice-born] can see the path of religion.
I am feeling incomplete, though I myself am fully equipped with everything required by the Vedas.” (SB 1.4.28-30)

However, Vyasadeva himself after deliberating on that, understands what is missing:

“This may be because I did not specifically point out the devotional service of the Lord, which is dear both to perfect beings and to the infallible Lord.”

Vyasadeva spoke a lot about dharma, fruitive activities, religious duties, and different branches of material knowledge, but not a single book he compiled spoke directly and exclusively about devotional service.

Prabhupada makes the point that if Vyasadeva, the compiler himself was still dissatisfied after compiling the Vedanta, what to say about others who just study it as part of their dry philosophical exercises? To find real satisfaction one must study the Srimad Bhagavatam and start the process of devotional service.

Often we think that everything the Vedas speak is on the same level and that we should follow everything, but it’s not like that. The Vedas deal with different levels of knowledge, and some parts are more important than others. We can say that Krsna himself says in the Bhagavad-Gita:

trai-gunya-visaya veda/ nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna
“The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna.” (Bg 2.45)

Most of the Vedas actually deal with fruitive activities destined to elevate one to celestial planets. That’s what most people are interested in, and what the Vedas offer as a way to entice them to live pious lives. There are some passages in the Vedas that deal with spiritual knowledge (compiled in the Upanisads) and then the parts that deal directly with devotional service, culminating in the Srimad Bhagavatam. If one believes he will have a very long life, one may try to study everything sequentially, but if one just goes directly to the Srimad Bhagavatam he will save a lot of time.

When Krsna says trai-gunya-visaya veda, he refers to the Ṛg, Sāma and Yajur Vedas. That’s the same context from 9.17, where he mentions “I am also the Ṛg, the Sāma and the Yajur Vedas.” The Atarva Veda is not even mentioned, because it deals primarily with material subjects.

As Vyasadeva considered these different points, Narada Muni, his spiritual master appeared at his cottage. Understanding the situation, Narada Muni immediately pointed out what was missing:

“Addressing Vyāsadeva, the son of Parāśara, Nārada inquired: Are you satisfied by identifying with the body or the mind as objects of self-realization?” (SB 1.5.2)

Being the son of a great father, Vyasa was also very competent. In this way, Narada simultaneously pointed out the mistake of giving too much attention to material subjects and encouraged Vyasadeva to do better.

Narada questions how Vyasa could be unhappy even after doing such great work, compiling such a vast literature, and then points out the reason:

“Śrī Nārada said: You have not actually broadcast the sublime and spotless glories of the Personality of Godhead. That philosophy which does not satisfy the transcendental senses of the Lord is considered worthless.” (1.5.9)

Narada Muni makes a point, saying that even knowledge about the soul is not very useful if it doesn’t give a clear idea about the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead (and not just as the impersonal Brahman), what to say about knowledge about fruitive activities and mere material piety that just gives temporary results? Only if one has a clear idea about devotional service and practices Karma-yoga will this be useful. In any case, everything revolves around devotional service. In this way he makes it clear that Vyasadeva should write another book, this time speaking directly about devotional service to Krsna. Vyasadeva is surely qualified to do this.

“Knowledge of self-realization, even though free from all material affinity, does not look well if devoid of a conception of the Infallible [God]. What, then, is the use of fruitive activities, which are naturally painful from the very beginning and transient by nature, if they are not utilized for the devotional service of the Lord?
O Vyāsadeva, your vision is completely perfect. Your good fame is spotless. You are firm in vow and situated in truthfulness. And thus you can think of the pastimes of the Lord in trance for the liberation of the people in general from all material bondage.” (1.5.12-13)

In the next verses, Narada makes another important point:

“Whatever you desire to describe that is separate in vision from the Lord simply reacts, with different forms, names and results, to agitate the mind, as the wind agitates a boat which has no resting place.
The people in general are naturally inclined to enjoy, and you have encouraged them in that way in the name of religion. This is verily condemned and is quite unreasonable. Because they are guided under your instructions, they will accept such activities in the name of religion and will hardly care for prohibitions.” (SB 1.5.14-15)

Although Vyasadeva had good intentions when he compiled the Vedas, the problem is that most people don’t understand the purpose of the Vedas. They then take the parts that look interesting for them —fruitive activities that elevate one to the celestial planets, or mental speculation about a vague Supreme Brahman— and forget about what is really important.

Prabhupada makes an interesting point in his purports:

“Śrīla Vyāsadeva should not have compiled any Purāṇas other than the Bhāgavata Purāṇa because a slight deviation from that may create havoc for self-realization. If a slight deviation can create such havoc, then what to speak of deliberate expansion of the ideas separate from the Absolute Truth Personality of Godhead. The most defective part of worshiping demigods is that it creates a definite conception of pantheism, ending disastrously in many religious sects detrimental to the progress of the principles of the Bhāgavatam, which alone can give the accurate direction for self-realization in eternal relation with the Personality of Godhead by devotional service in transcendental love.”

After the beginning of Kali-yuga, people in India quickly forgot about any conception of devotional service and became just attached to fruitive activities, especially animal sacrifices. Thus the real purpose of the Vedas is completely lost and people became immersed in materialism and hedonism, killing animals in so-called Vedic sacrifices just to eat their flesh. In such a situation, the Lord appeared as Buddha, to teach the principles of non-violence. Since it’s easier to build a new house than to fix an old and broken one, he rejected the Vedas in the process.

Later, Sankaracarya brought people back to the study of the Vedas by preaching his monistic philosophy, which was nothing more than a covered version of Buddhism based on the Vedas. This paved the way for Ramanujacarya to speak about a personal God and devotional service to Him, sustaining his points by quoting passages of the scriptures, ideas that were further reinforced by Madvacarya. In this way, the people from Kali-yuga were gradually elevated by a sequence of acaryas, culminating with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu who established the supreme goal.

Therefore, as far as possible we should teach people about this supreme goal instead of distracting them with other things that in the end have little value. That’s what Narada told Vyasadeva.

What is the similarity between the Bhagavad-Gita and the Vedanta Sutra? There are actually many similarities since they describe the same Absolute Truth, which is ultimately a person, and the process of connecting with Him. The Bhagavad-Gita is one of the 108 Upanisadis, while the Vedanta Sutra describes the conclusions of the Upanisadis, and so on. These two books are actually very closely connected.

Another thing they have in common is that they describe the same five tattvas, or truths:

1. Isvara (The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the Supreme Controller).
2. Jiva (the individual souls, who are controlled by Him).
3. Prakrti (the material nature).
4. Kala (time, which governs the duration of the existence of the whole material manifestation).
5. Karma (material activity).

These five points and the interactions between them are very important topics because when they are not properly understood, all kinds of philosophical misconceptions appear.

Srila Prabhupada explains these five points in his introduction to the Bhagavad-Gita as it is, and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana describes the same points in his introduction to the Govinda Basya, his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. This is a list of points from both explanations.

Often younger devotees ask me how to find a good wife and settle into a good marriage. I answer that it is actually quite simple, but it requires one to be able to control his senses.

The problem with most men is that they are too much attracted to women. And not exactly to women, but just to their external bodies. No one likes to be treated like an object, and therefore they tend to be rejected by the women they approach, even if they have good intentions. When they finally find some women who accept their proposal, she often just accepts because there is no better option, and then the man has to work his whole life to fulfill all her material desires, understanding that if he doesn’t do that she will leave him. That’s a very miserable position to be in.

Instead, we can get the example of a good marriage in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Kardama Muni wanted to marry, but he didn’t go out chasing ladies. Instead, he focussed on his spiritual practice and asked Krsna to take take of it, surrendering the choice to Him.

At the same time, because he was so serious about his spiritual practice, Narada Muni became greatly pleased and narrated his glories to Swayambhuva Manu, which was in turn overheard by Devahuti. Hearing about the austerities and personal qualities of this great sage she immediately got attracted to him. Eventually, her father got to know about this and decided to offer her in marriage to the great sage, who had been told by the Lord that it would happen, and was more than pleased to accept her hand.

By the time they got married, Kardama Muni was still practicing austerities, so Devahuti had to be patient and serve him in the forest for many years, facing many hardships. These austerities of Kardama Muni served a higher purpose and were beneficial for both, but of course, it was not easy for her. However, because she loved him, she was able to tolerate it, and eventually, they reaped the results of such austerities.

Kardama Muni became so powerful that he was able to create a flying castle inside which they could travel through the celestial planets, and not only did they have seven beautiful daughters, but the Lord himself appeared as their son, Lord Kapila, and instructed both in the devotional science making sure that both would go back to Godhead.

How does this apply to our modern life?

The point is that reconciling married life with spiritual practice requires sacrifice, especially on the part of the wife, because usually women have many material desires and mature human life requires one learning that they can’t be all satisfied. Married life in general requires a lot of sacrifice, and married life with a higher purpose requires even more. The only way for a lady to accept going through it is when she is sure that she married the right man, or in other words when she married the man she loves. Although still technically material this love is actually quite high and can act as a powerful transforming force, that can help a selfish lady to become a selfless mother and wife.

Instead of chasing ladies, the best approach for a man is to work on his spiritual practice and other personal qualities. Become a great man who can control his senses and give shelter to others, and then accept a lady who truly loves him for his qualities. When a man is self-controlled and develops good personal qualities (and especially if through these qualities he is able to perform some great deeds) then a number of ladies will become interested.

When a man can control his senses, and the lady is in love with him, he can properly guide his family, and their family life can be not only happy but also spiritually progressive. Such a couple can beget good children and serve as a wonderful example to society. That’s the only way I know it works, especially in modern times.

In 2019 the GBC approved a resolution opening the doors to Vaishnavas in female bodies to also start acting as diksa gurus, just as their male counterparts. In one sense, this question seems to be easy enough: the relationship between guru and disciple is spiritual and not material, therefore it is a relationship between two souls and not between two bodies. The soul in a female body is not different from a soul in a male body, therefore it should not be a big question.

It may look simple in theory, but the implementation revealed much more polemical and divisive than perhaps originally thought. Although the resolution was passed almost five years ago, the topic is far from settled. There is a lot of opposition to it, especially in India, and there are even groups that want to separate from ISKCON due to it.

What makes this question so difficult, it that it mixes actually three separate factors:

The first is the philosophical discussion, if it is correct or not according to the sastras and the instructions of our acaryas. This discussion is not so simple, because the sastras deal with different principles that are applicable to different circumstances and such principles are often very difficult to reconcile. The fact that many tend to debate based on isolated quotes also does not help.

Who is Maha-Vishnu? Who is Saṅkarṣaṇa? Who is Narayana? Who are Karanarnavasayi Vishnu, Garbhodakasayi Vishnu and Ksirodakasayi Vishnu? What is the difference and the relationship between them? Who is Sadha-Shiva? What is the difference between him and the Shiva present in our universe?

Everything starts with Krsna. Krsna is the original, Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krsna is just like a candle that ignites other candles. All candles may provide a similar illumination, but still, there is a candle that ignited all the others and is thus the origin of the illumination. Similarly, there are many forms of Vishnu and they are all powerful, but still, Krsna is the original, Supreme Personality of Godhead. kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

Krsna expands Himself into Balalarama, who is the original Servitor God. Krsna is the Supreme God, and Balarama is the Servitor God. Both are God, and both are equally worshipable, but between them, Krsna is served, and Balarama is the servitor. Balarama expands himself into all forms of paraphernalia used by Krsna, and even most of His associates, facilitating Krsna’s pastimes. Balarama also appears to us in the form of the spiritual master to teach us how to serve Krsna.

From Balarama comes the first Saṅkarṣaṇa, who is the origin of all the different Vishnu forms. From the first Sankarsana comes Nārāyaṇa, the Lord of Vaikunta, and from Narayana comes the second Saṅkarṣaṇa, who is the origin of all the Purusa avataras, the expansions of the Lord who take charge of the creation and maintenance of the material universes.

Who are these Purusha avataras?

Vyasadeva did a monumental work in compiling the Vedic literature. All the Vedic texts we have today, including all the Puranas, Upanishads, and so on are estimated to be just 7% of all the verses compiled by Vyasadeva that survived the passage of time. Originally he wrote much more.

Vyasadeva originally divided the original Veda into four and passed each division to one of his disciples. They in turn subdivided the knowledge amongst their different disciples, giving birth to all different branches of knowledge:

Our spirtual process starts with hearing. After we become eager to hear, the cleaning of the material desires from the heart starts and as we become free from material desires we become progressively happier. However, it’s a long way back to Godhead. There is a very special verse in the Srimad Bhagavatam that explains how to make this process faster:

“By regular attendance in classes on the Bhāgavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.” (SB 1.2.18)

The verse mentions “nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā” (regularly serving the Bhāgavata). Srila Prabhupada explains that there are two Bhāgavatas: the book bhāgavata and the devotee Bhāgavata. As he explains: “A devotee Bhāgavata is as good as the book Bhāgavata because the devotee Bhāgavata leads his life in terms of the book Bhāgavata and the book Bhāgavata is full of information about the Personality of Godhead and His pure devotees, who are also Bhāgavatas. Bhāgavata book and person are identical.”

When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu started His sankirtan movement, he very quickly filled Navadwipa with love of Godhead, which quickly overflowed and submerged the whole of India. At the time, not only the direct associates of Mahaprabhu were pure devotees, but also the distant associates, people who came into contact with them, the family members of the people who would come in contact with them, and even people who would come in contact with people who came in contact with them. In this way, Prema spread like a powerful virus, quickly taking over India.

However, just a few hundred years later, Vaishnavism had already degenerated into a conglomerate of sects that had little to do with the original movement of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Baulas were living degraded lives and chanting fold songs, just like hippies, Ativadis were worshipping Lord Jagannatha with the goal of becoming one with Him, Saki Bekis were dressing in saris and pretending to be Gopis while at the same time doing the most immoral things, and so on.

How could the original movement, where practically everyone was not only a pure devotee at the level of Prema degenerate so badly? And if it went so wrong the first time, what is the possibility of transforming the current materialistic society into a society of pure devotees, starting the Golden Age that is predicted in the scriptures?