Dating of the Srimad Bhagavatam

Some people believe the Srimad Bhagavatam, or Bhagavata Purana, was authored in the 13th century by Bopadeva. Some early indologists held this view, but later scholars have found it to be false for a number of reasons.

I will briefly mention the points offered by various scholars in this regards.

1) Bopadeva is dated to have lived in the 13th century. Ramachandra, the Yadava king of Devagiri reigned from 1271 to 1309 AD. His prime minister wes Hemadri. It was to please Hemadri that Bopadeva's other books on the bhagavata (summaries, indexes, etc.) were written:

srimadbhagavata-skandhadhyayarthadi nirupyate

vidusha bopadevena mantrihemadritushtaye

Thus the date of Bopadeva is well established and accepted.

Bopadeva wrote three books on the Bhagavata, namely "Harililamrita", "Mukta-phala" and "Paramahamsa-priya". Hemadri has written a commentary on Mukta-phala.

In Hemadri's commentary on Mukta-phala, a list of Bopadeva's writings is given. A total of 26 books authored by Bopadeva are named and described. If Bopadeva had authored the Bhagavatam, it would have been mentioned by Hemadri. And it is impossible for the Bhagavatam to have been written after this text, as this text was a commentary on a text about the Bhagavatam.

2) Furthermore, Hemadri quotes from the Bhagavata as evidence to establish many of his points. If the Bhagavata had just been composed by Bopadeva, it would not have been used as a source of authority. Only standardly accepted scriptural texts would be used to establish one's points.

3) Also, Hemadri incorporated the Vrata-khanda and Dana-khanda of the Bhagavatam in his own text. If the Bhagavatam had just been written by Bopadeva, it would not have been proper to plagarize his writings in this manner.

4) In his writings, Hemadri quotes from Sridhara Swami's commentary on the Bhagavata. Sridhara Swami's commentary was much older than Hemadri's own writings, thus the Bhagavatam must have predated Hemadri by many years.

5) Madhva, who lived at least 50 years prior to Bopadeva, considered the Bhagavata to be fully inspired ('traditional') and wrote a commentary on it. Thus it was already accepted as an authoritative work prior to the time of Madhva.

6) In Madhva's 'Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya', Madhva mentions eight other commentaries on the Bhagavatam prior to his own. Thus not only did the Bhagavatam predate Madhva, it had already become popular by that time.

Al-Beruni who visited India around 1000 AD mentions a Bhagavatam which extolls the virtues of Vasudeva, thus falsifying the Bopadeva theory. Generally scholars are of the opinion that the final form of the Bhagavatam happened between 650 - 1000 AD. However the core material itself is believed to be much older.

Shankara [800 AD] does not quote from it, Ramanuja [1100 AD] does not quote from it.

Cheers

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-20-2001).]

Originally posted by shvu:

Shankara [800 AD] does not quote from it.

 

But interestingly enough, Shankara is one of the eight commentators mentioned by Madhva. Today there is no commentary available by Shankara, but it is possible it may have existed at one time.