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.