Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Purana Index v1.c3.s7: The Bhagavata Purana

The Purāṇa Index v1.c3.s7

Language
English

The Bhagavata Purana

v1.c3.s7.1

Scholars, European and Indian, have now come to believe that the Muktāphala was after all a work much dependant upon the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and in his Harilila, Bopadeva has simply indexed the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. It has been admirably pointed by Prof. Winternitz that the Bopadeva theory cannot stand critical examination (History of Indian Literature, Vol. I, p 558). The Śrimad Bhāgavatām which is undoubtedly a Mahāpurāṇa is commonly regarded as Vaiṣṇava Purāṇa. No doubt it deals with the avatārs of Vishnu, particularly with the avatār of Krishna. Be it noted that Krishna is a common god even to-day much worshipped by the people. The Śrimad Bhāgavatām conceives Krishna as a Vedic god, and in the Bhāgavata there is also the glorification of Śiva and there is no sectarian animosity towards Śaiva worship.

v1.c3.s7.2

Most vital to our point is the cult of Sankarshana-Vāsudeva which prevailed from the 6th century B C. to about the 3rd century A.D. In the religious system of India, Pāṇini and Patañjali referred to Vāsudeva as a divine being glorified by the Sātvatas, one of the Yādava tribes when Śri Krishna was flourishing. The Bhāgavata says that Vāsudeva and Baladeva were regarded as gods by Sātvatas, corroborated by the Nārāyaṇīya section of the Mahābhārata. Even the Tamil country was familiar with this cult as could be seen from the Śilappadikāram, a Tamil classic of the second century A.D. The cult of Balarāma was slowly given up and in the new system of religion that arose, only Vāsudeva remained as the supreme God who was identified with Nārāyaṇa. We are at some length on this question because the Bhāgavata Purāṇa does not mention in so many words the Sankarṣaṇa-Vāsudeva cult. It would appear then that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa was composed after the Vāsudeva-Sankarṣaṇa cult disappeared, and when the Vāsudeva cult was all in all. This must have been the time when the imperial Guptas were rising into prominence.

v1.c3.s7.3

We have therefore to dismiss the theory of R. G. Bhandarkar and Pargiter as to the date of this Purāṇa, and there should be no hesitation in putting it down as a work of the 3rd century A.D. The reference to Viṣṇu Purāṇa in the Tamil classic of 2nd century A.D. must show, as has been already said, that it must have been composed some two or three centuries before. The Bhāgavata which follows the Viṣṇu Purāṇa in its major details, must be more or less in the neighbourhood of the date of the composition of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. It would not be then unreasonable to say that the Bhāgavatam was a work of the third century A.D.

v1.c3.s7.4

When we are examining this question two things strike a student of history. One is the prominence given in the religion of the Guptas to the worship of Varāha, the third incarnation of Viṣṇu and the other is that the imperial Guptas styled themselves as Paramabhāgavatas meaning that they were wedded to the cult of the Bhāgavata. The Bhāgavata school was characterised by the system of Bhakti or devotion. The Śrimad Bhāgavatam deals with Varāha Avatār in extenso and the term Bhagavān as understood in those days was applicable to any god or sage who had all the six attributes connoted by the term *Bhaga*. In these circumstances we are obliged to think that the imperial Guptas, Smārtas as they were, held as sacred the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam as its tenets appealed to them most. We conclude therefore with Sir Charles Eliot that the Śrīmad Bhāgavata could not belong to the latest class of Purāṇas, for "it seems to contemplate the performance of Smārta rights, not temple ceremonial" (For details, see my article in the Journal of the Madras University, January and July 1949, pp 87 to 95 on the *Date of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa*.)

Linked texts (7)