Devotees often disagree on different philosophical points, and of course, when disagreements appear, the different parties try to settle the disputes by researching passages from the scriptures. The problem is that almost always such discussions are inconclusive. There are a multitude of passages in the scriptures that can be used to support different points of view, and texts can always be misinterpreted. A small grammar misunderstanding can often completely invert the meaning of a specific verse.

This is nothing new. Our acaryas also had to deal with such discussions. The fact is that except for the Buddhists, everyone in India traditionally debates based on the Vedas. Everyone, from the Mayavadis to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, uses different passages from the Vedas to sustain whatever philosophy they propound. There are personalists, impersonalists, worshipers of Lord Shiva or Shakti, worshippers of different demigods, and even atheists, and everyone has different viewpoints based on different passages from the scriptures. Different passages from the Vedas can be used to maintain that Krsna is God, that Vishnu is God, that God is ultimately impersonal, that there is no God and matter organizes by itself, that there is a God but he is subordinate to Karma, that everyone is God, that Shiva is God and so on.

Since all these different philosophical systems can be sustained with passages from the Vedas, how can we find the truth? Srila Jiva Goswami went to great lengths in discussing this pint in his Sat-Sandarbhas. As well known, these are six books that he wrote based on verses left by Srila Gopala Bhatta Goswami. Srila Jiva Goswami found the incomplete manuscripts and decided to complete the work, by carefully going through it, organizing the different ideas, rewriting parts that were lost, expanding different arguments, adding additional references, and so on. In this way, the Sat-Sandarbhas are a joint work of these two exalted acaryas. As Sri Jiva wrote:

“That first edition of this work was a rough draft, with some parts in topical order and others not, and with some parts only suggestive fragments. So I, an insignificant Jiva, have carefully gone over the manuscript and rewritten it more systematically.”

One of the points sustained by Srila Jiva Goswami in the Sat Sandarbhas is that not all verses of the scriptures are on the same level. In the Tattva Sandharba, he gives an elaborate explanation as to why the Puranas should be given priority over other Vedic texts, and among the Puranas, the Srimad Bhagavatam is prominent.

One who studies the Vedanta Sutra separately, for example, may be completely bewildered about the nature of God, but once one studies the same text under the light of the Srimad Bhagavatam, the original conclusion becomes clear.

He explains that even when we come to the Puranas, it’s important to make a distinction. The Puranas are divided into three groups, with the Tamassic Puranas often emphasizing the supremacy of Lord Shiva, and the Rajasic Puranas often emphasizing the glories of different demigods or fruitive activities. Even amongst the Sattvic Puranas, the supremacy of Krsna is not always very clear, and many passages can be used to sustain different misconceptions. Therefore, one can find the ultimate conclusions only when he interprets the other Puranas under the light of the Srimad Bhagavatam, and all the other Vedas according to the devotional conclusion given in the Puranas.

As he explains in the Sri Krsna Sandharbha (Anuccheda 29, texts 69 to 71):

“Statements in the Saivite Purāņas should not be accepted unless they are corroborated by the Vaisnava Puranas. This is confirmed in the Saivite Puranas (Skanda Purana) where Lord Siva says to Karttikeya:
“Statements in the Saivite Puranas should be accepted only if they are confirmed in the Vaisnava Puranas.” The followers of Lord Siva may try to present a different conclusion, but they are simply contradicting the words of their own master, recorded in their own scripture. From this statement of Lord Siva, we may understand that the Saivite Purānas are not a very reliable source of spiritual information.
The inferiority of the Saivite Puranas is confirmed in the Uttara Khanda of the Padma Purana, which explains that the Saivite Puranas are intended for those in the mode of ignorance. The Matsya Purana also confirms that the Saivite Puranas are full of faulty and ignorant conclusions.
Without understanding the Srimad Bhagavatam, one cannot properly understand the philosophy of spiritual life. An example of this is Romaharsana Suta. Because of not studying the Bhagavatam, Romaharsana had not properly understood the exalted position of Lord Balarama. Because of an offense to Lord Balarāma, Romaharsana was killed by the Lord. From this, we may understand the importance of Srimad-Bhāgavatam. Without reference to the Bhagavatam, one cannot conclusively understand the nature of the Absolute Truth.
That certain sages may sometimes present false conclusions, which may sometimes even become recorded in the Puranas, is confirmed in the following statement of Śrīmad-Bhagavatam (10.77.30):
“O King, some sages have said that Lord Krsna became bewildered by the mystic jugglery of Salva. Such conclusions should not be accepted, for they contradict the conclusion of all Vedic literatures, Lord Krsna never becomes bewildered.”
From this, we may understand the supreme authority of Srimad Bhagavatam. Any scriptural explanation that contradicts the version of the Bhagavatam should be rejected.”

Also in the Krsna Sandarbha (where he deals specifically with the issue of Krsna being the Supreme Lord, instead of just an incarnation of the hair of Maha-Vishnu), he explains that even inside the Srimad Bhagavatam certain verses are more important than others, giving the conclusions that are essential to properly understand the rest of the text.

He explains that, for example, all the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam should be interpreted under the passage “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam” (Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead) from SB 1.3.28, which he describes a as Paribhasa-Sutra. If one takes all the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam as equally important, he may be bewildered by verses that appear to describe Krsna as an incarnation of Lord Maha-Vishnu, for example, but when the Bhagavatam is interpreted under the conclusion of the Paribhasa-Sutra, the real meaning of all the verses become clear.

On the Anuccheda 80 (texts 5 and 6) he explains:

ity angopadisanty eke vismṛtya prag udahṛtam munivāsa-nivāse kim ghatetarista-darsanam. ity adau.
evam vadanti rājarṣe ity ādau ca. evam vadanti rajarṣe rṣayah ke ca nanvitaḥ yat svavaco virudhyeta na nyūnam te smaranty amu.

Here he mentions two passages from the 10th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam and uses them as examples for his point (the translation includes the two verses he mentions):

“The citizens of Dvarakā felt themselves threatened with pestilence and natural disturbances due to the absence of Akrura from the city. This was a kind of superstition because while Lord Krsna was present there could not be any pestilence, famine, or natural disturbances.”
This misconception thought by the residents of Dvaraka may be taken as an example of the false ideas which may sometimes find their way into the Vedic literatures. For this reason, the supreme Vedic literature. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, should be always taken as the final authority, and any statement contradicting the Bhāgavatam should be rejected.
This is also described in the following verse (Śrīmad-Bhagavatam 10.77.30):
“O King Parikṣit, although Krsna lamented when Śalva attempted to trick Him into thinking that His father Vasudeva was killed, we should understand that in actuality, Lord Krsna was not at all fooled, and He did not lament. Although some sages may say that the Lord lamented, such statements are not fit to be accepted as truth.”
This verse clearly describes how untrue statements may sometimes be found in the Vedic literatures. The careful reader must be prepared, therefore, to sometimes reject scriptural quotations. The guideline for accepting and rejecting such statements should be the authority of Srimad Bhagavatam.”

Here I’m just quoting two passages, but one can find the whole argumentative process that leads to this conclusion by studying the Tattva Sandarbha, Bhagavata Sandarbha, Paramatma Sandarbha, and Sri Krsna Sandarbha. In any case, the point is that studying the Vedas without previously receiving the right conclusions from the spiritual master through the parampara system is more or less useless because one will almost surely reach the wrong conclusions.

From this, we can understand why Srila Prabhupada put so much effort into writing his commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam, putting there all the important philosophical conclusions from our previous acaryas. Although most of us don’t have the opportunity to go through the process of studying the whole Srimad Bhagavatam directly from the spiritual master, we can still get a similar benefit by just studying the commentary of Srila Prabhupada and asking relevant questions. This was the system Prabhupada created to be able to continue guiding generations of devotees in the society he created even after his physical departure, making them understand all the proper conclusions of the Vedic literature.

The Srimad Bhagavatam contains the keys to properly understanding Vaishnava philosophy, and through his purports, Prabhupada makes sure that we understand the proper conclusions necessary to understand the Srimad Bhagavatam, and from there all the other books that compose Vaishnava literature, including the works of all previous acaryas.

I personally become frequently impressed by how well the purports Prabhupada gives prepare us to understand books like the Jaiva Dharma, Brhad Bhagavatamrta, or even the Sat Sandarbhas. Reading these books after carefully studying the purports Prabhupada gives in the Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya Caritamrta is fairly easy because we are already familiar with the conclusions, and we mostly follow the logical process that leads to the conclusions Prabhupada already makes clear in his books. However, studying the same books without this base is much harder and propense to misunderstanding.

The problem is that nowadays this system is under attack. There is strong propaganda in the direction that Prabhupada taught only the ABCD, that his disciples are all sadakas or neophytes, and that one has to go to this or that babaji or to this or that Sanskrit scholar to get more profound knowledge. These are very dangerous ideas that aim directly at the basis of the system Srila Prabhupada created to uplift us.

Even if it doesn’t come to directly rejecting Prabhupada’s teachings, many fail to show proper respect for his works and go over their heads in their efforts to understand the works of previous acaryas, or even go directly to the different Puranas and other Vedic texts without studying or accepting these conclusions given by Prabhupada in his books. We can see this phenomenon in the works in many discussions about female diksa gurus, for example, where devotees often bring quotes from all over the place, without the slightest idea of how they fit together. Others fail to understand the most basic philosophical points, coming to the most absurd conclusions even after spending years studying different sastras.

Over the centuries, thousands of great philosophers debated in India based on the Vedas without being able to reach the correct conclusions. It was only after the advent of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Six Goswamis that these conclusions became clear, and Prabhupada was the acarya who was able to finally explain these conclusions in a language that most people can understand. However, if we reject these conclusions, subscribing to the offensive theory that Prabhupada gave only the ABCD, we may end up not being able to properly understand even the most elementary aspects of Vaishnava philosophy.