Question

Short conclusion of The Later vedic age

Answer 1

Arjuna accepted theVedic conclusion that there is an atomic soul or he did not believe in the existence of the soul, he had no reason to lament.

BG 2.28, Purport: 

And if we accept theVedic conclusion as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā that these material bodies are perishable in due course of time (antavanta ime dehāḥ) but that the soul is eternal (nityasyoktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ), then we must remember always that the body is like a dress; therefore why lament the changing of a dress?

Srimad-Bhagavatam

SB Preface and Introduction

SB Introduction: 

"The Buddhists are called atheists because they have no respect for the Vedas, but those who defy the Vedic conclusions, as above mentioned, under the pretense of being followers of the Vedas, are verily more dangerous than the Buddhists."

SB Canto 2

SB 2.2.34, Purport: 

The Vedic conclusion is thus accepted by all ācāryas, and those who are against this conclusion are only veda-vāda-ratas, as explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (2.42).

SB 2.10.3, Purport: 

As mentioned in the previous verse, śrutena (or with reference to the Vedic conclusions), the creation is made possible from the Supreme Personality of Godhead directly by manifestation of His particular energies.

SB 2.10.3, Purport, Purport: 

The Vedic conclusion is transcendental light, whereas the non-Vedic conclusion is material darkness.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.2.28, Purport: 

Sometimes it is necessary to preach a philosophical doctrine which is against the Vedic conclusion.

SB 4.4.16, Purport: 

It is useless to condemn a great personality like Lord Śiva, and this is being stated by his wife, Satī, to establish the supremacy of her husband. First she said, "You call Lord Śiva inauspicious because he associates with demons in crematoriums, covers his body with the ashes of the dead, and garlands himself with the skulls of human beings. You have shown so many defects, but you do not know that his position is always transcendental. Although he appears inauspicious, why do personalities like Brahmā respect the dust of his lotus feet and place on their heads with great respect those very garlands which are condemned by you?" Since Satī was a chaste woman and the wife of Lord Śiva, it was her duty to establish the elevated position of Lord Śiva, not only by sentiment but by facts. Lord Śiva is not an ordinary living entity. This is theconclusion of Vedic scripture. He is neither on the level of the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor on the level of the ordinary living entities. Brahmā is in almost all cases an ordinary living entity. Sometimes, when there is no ordinary living entity available, the post of Brahmā is occupied by an expansion of Lord Viṣṇu, but generally this post is occupied by a greatly pious living entity within this universe. Thus Lord Śiva's position is constitutionally higher than that of Lord Brahmā, although Lord Śiva appeared as the son of Brahmā.

SB 4.9.5, Translation: 

At that time Dhruva Mahārāja became perfectly aware of the Vedic conclusion and understood the Absolute Truth and His relationship with all living entities.

SB 4.9.5, Purport: 

Dhruva Mahārāja never went to any school or academic teacher to learn the Vedic conclusion, but because of his devotional service to the Lord, as soon as the Lord appeared and touched his forehead with His conchshell, automatically the entireVedic conclusion was revealed to him. That is the process of understanding Vedic literature. One cannot understand it simply by academic learning. The Vedas indicate that only to one who has unflinching faith in the Supreme Lord as well as in the spiritual master is theVedic conclusion revealed.

SB 4.9.5, Purport: 

Dhruva was only a child. He wanted to offer nice prayers to the Lord, but because he lacked sufficient knowledge, he hesitated; but by the mercy of the Lord, as soon as the Lord's conchshell touched his forehead, he became completely aware of theVedic conclusion.