Bhāgavata

Multiple Uses of the Term 

The term bhāgavata means “related to Bhagavant” and “devotee of Bhagavant” when applied to persons.Bhagavant could designate divine beings such as the god Viṣṇu, his aspects (such as Nārāyaṇa and Kṛṣṇa), Śiva, or the Buddha, and distinguished persons such as Pāṇini (Bhandarkar, 1965, 30, 108–109; Kielhorn, 1908). Bhāgavatahas also been used to refer to devotees of Śiva (Bhandarkar, 1965, 115–116). This article is limited to the meaning of Bhāgavatas as devotees of Viṣṇu and his aspects, and here “Bhāgavatism” will refer to devotion toward Viṣṇu. The article aims to highlight different occurrences and meanings of the word bhāgavata in a historical perspective, with no pretension of being exhaustive or of binding these meanings together in an a priori unifying evolution. In the large area that is the Indian subcontinent, geo-religious situations were as important factors of semantic diversity as chronology. It is important to bear in mind that the use of the term bhāgavata to designate the devotees of Viṣṇu is much earlier than the term vaiṣṇava, whose appearance in this meaning may not predate the 5th century (Jaiswal, 1967, 30; Colas, 2003, 229). 

Bhāgavatism and Aristocratic Patrons in the 2nd–1st Centuries BCE 

The earliest approximately datable documentation (2nd–1st cents. BCE) on the term bhāgavatais epigraphic and comes from an area spreading over the present Indian states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra. It speaks of Bhāgavatas who are kings, queens, and politically influential persons, but it provides only meager information about the nature of their faith and worship. It is not known whether more modest segments of the society followed Bhāgavatism. Some patrons of Bhāgavata worship (like the Greek ambassador Heliodoros) could have belonged to milieus that were not connected with vedic circles. Some Bhāgavatas are said to have funded vedic rites, but there is no evidence of admixture, during this period, of the Bhāgavata and vedic systems. It is possible that these patrons saw them as complementary rituals (Colas, 2006). 

The most well known of these epigraphs is the Garuda Pillar Inscription of Besnagar (near Sanchi, in Madhya Pradesh), dated 2nd or 1st century BCE (Sircar, 1942, 90). In a Prakrit language, it records the setting up of a Garuḍa pillar in honor of Vāsudeva (i.e. Kṛṣṇa) by the Greek ambassador Heliodora (Hēliodōros) of Takṣaśilā (Taxila), who bears the title Bhāgavata. Another inscription from Besnagar, probably of the same period, also records the installation of a Garuḍa pillar by a Bhāgavata in front of a temple of Bhagavant, in the 12th year of the reign of a king named Bhāgavata. Scholars disagree as to whether the term bhāgavata in this inscription is a proper name or an adjective (Jaiswal, 1967, 153; Malinar, 2007, 255). 

An inscription from Pratapgarh (today in Chittorgarh district of Rajasthan, but not far from Besnagar), dated 2nd century BCE, records in a Sanskritized Prakrit that a sacābhāgavata (i.e. “true” Bhāgavata) named Utararakhita erected a pillar (Salomon, 1998, 240). The Sanskrit Ghosundi Stone Inscription, found near Nagari (also in Chittorgarh district) and dated 1st century BCE, records that the Bhāgavata king Sarvatāta, who also performed a vedic horse sacrifice (aśvamedha; see yajña ), built a “stone-enclosure for the place of worship” called “the enclosure of Nārāyaṇa” for the gods Vāsudeva and his elder brother Saṃkarṣaṇa (Sircar, 1942, 186–190). Though the Nanaghat (in Maharashtra) Cave Inscription of the Satavahana queen Nāyanikā (dated second half of the 1st cent. BCE) does not use the term bhāgavata, it begins with an invocation to several gods, including Vāsudeva and Saṃkarṣaṇa. It also records sacrificial fees paid to priests for performing vedic sacrifices (installation of fires, horse sacrifices, and coronation sacrifice; Sircar, 1942, 186–190). 

These inscriptions do not help to settle the question of whether Bhāgavatism was a devotional movement or an organized sect. They testify to the funding of public or semipublic worship of Vāsudeva and Saṃkarṣaṇa by Bhāgavata patrons who often belonged to the aristocracy in a comparatively restricted area of North India and financed vedic rites. Evidence from epigraphic findings from a limited region, however, perhaps give only a uncomplete picture. 

Literary Evidence from the First Centuries CE 

Epigraphic evidence of Bhāgavatism is rare in the ensuing period, which could be due to the vagaries of archaeological findings. But there are some literary testimonies, though rare and often inexplicit. They confirm the continued association of political aristocracy with Bhāgavatism during the period of their composition, but they also show that nonaristocratic classes were also part of its fold. These testimonies come mainly from three portions of the historically multilayered text of the Mahābhārata : the Bhagavadgītā , the Nārāyaṇīyaparvan, and the Harivaṃśa. The dating of these portions remains a subject of scholarly debate. 

It is accepted by scholars that the different parts of the Bhagavadgītā were composed over different periods (Malinar, 2007, 242–271). The present form of the text was perhaps reached in the 1st century CE (Brockington, 1998, 147). Though the Bhagavadgītā does not contain the wordbhāgavata, it is often considered to belong to the Bhāgavata group or to be affiliated with it (Esnoul, 1956, 155; see discussion in Malinar, 2007, 33ff.). It describes the Bhagavant Vāsudeva (i.e. Kṛṣṇa) receiving sacrifices and veneration from his devotees, but their rites are only briefly mentioned (Colas, 1999, 478; 2006, 362–363). It also states that the worshippers of Bhagavant, of the ancestors (pitṛvrata), of other gods, and of spirits ( bhūta s) reach the respective objects of their worship (BhG. 9.25). The Nārāyaṇīyaparvan (3rd to 4th–5th cents. CE; Brockington, 1998, 152; Schreiner, 1997, 1; Oberlies, 1997, 86), which rarely mentions the term bhāgavata and does not provide any precise information about its import, cannot be identified with certainty as a Bhāgavata text. The term bhāgavata seems, from context, to refer to the devotees of Nārāyaṇa and not specifically to the Pāñcarātrika group (also named Sātvata; see Pāñcarātra) mentioned by the text (against Couture, 1986, 221n3; Colas, 2003, 232, 234). The identity of the Bhāgavatas mentioned in the Nārāyaṇīyaparvan and the Harivaṃśa is not obvious. For example, theNārāyaṇīyaparvan promotes vedic sacrifice without animal killing, while the Bhāgavatas of theHarivaṃśa are said to practice animal sacrifice. It remains to be seen whether the Bhāgavatas of the Nārāyaṇīyaparvan followed the ideology of this text in this regard and whether they can be put side by side with the Bhāgavatas of the Harivaṃśa (see Colas, 2003, 232, 234; 2006, 365–366). 

The Harivaṃśa (dated 3rd to 4th, sometimes 1st to 3rd, cents. CE) clearly refers to a Bhāgavata tradition (Couture, 1986, 224–225; 1991, 77; Brockington, 1998, 326). For example, it mentions a Kṣatriya devotee, Akrūra, paying homage with bhāgavatamantras to the serpent Ananta-Śeṣa (see sacred animals), who is said to be a Bhāgavata. The conduct attributed to Bhāgavatas in the text, namely performing one’s duty, practicing the rites of one’s own endogamous group (jāti), reciting mantra s related to Bhagavant, and identifying oneself with the serpent Ananta-Śeṣa, does not seem to be convincing evidence that the text belongs to a specific Bhāgavata community (compare Couture, 1986, 222; 2007, 28–29; Colas, 2006, 364, 373). 

Bhāgavatas and Pitṛbhaktas 

It is only with the Gupta period that inscriptions mentioning the term bhāgavata are found again, particularly in the compounds mahābhāgavata (great Bhāgavata) and paramabhāgavata(supreme Bhāgavata) and, as in earlier epigraphy, in association with political aristocracy. These inscriptions of the 4th to 6th centuries originate from a much larger geographical area than that of the previously mentioned inscriptions, spreading from Saurashtra to Orissa and Andhra. We learn that the monarchs who patronized or followed Bhāgavatism also funded vedic sacrifices. The fact that rulers are called “great” or “supreme” Bhāgavatas implies, perhaps, that they distinguish themselves from the common flock of nonaristocratic Bhāgavatas. For example, the epithet “supreme Bhāgavata” is applied to Gupta emperors from Candragupta II (4th cent. CE) as well as to numerous later rulers (Jaiswal, 1967, 201ff., 205; von Stietencron, 1978, 11). 

The great Bhāgavata king Maṅgaleśa (6th cent. CE) of the Chalukya family founded a cave temple in Badami, where an icon of Viṣṇu was ritually installed. The inscription that records this fact also mentions that he patronized various kinds of vedic sacrifices such as horse sacrifice and agniṣṭoma (Sivaramamurti, 1966, 204–206; see yajña ). This shows that, like the Bhāgavata monarchs of the pre-Christian era, several kings of the 6th century did not see any contradiction between their Bhāgavata faith and their performance of vedic rites. The mention of the two kinds of rituals separately does not preclude the possible existence of ritual syncretism among Bhāgavatas of that period, for the 5th–6th-century Tamil Paripāṭal refers to Tirumāl (i.e. Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa) manifesting himself in vedic sacrificial post and fires (Colas, 2003, 232). Rites and their categorization – strict or relaxed – in Bhāgavatism probably varied according to areas and communities (Colas, 2006, 367–372). 

Monarchs of the 5th-6th centuries sometimes designated as supreme Bhāgavatas in epigraphy are also occasionally given the qualificative “(extremely) devoted to ancestors” or “to one’s father” ([atyanta]pitṛbhakta; Jaiswal, 1967, 201, 205), a term also used much later, in the 16th century (see, for instance, the opening verse of Rāmakṛṣṇa’s Yuktisnehaprapūraṇī on Pārthasārathimiśra’s Śāstradīpikā). The meaning of this term in the inscriptions is obscure. Some scholars argue that pitṛbhakta was the name of a dynasty, while others argue that it simply means “devoted to one’s father” (discussion in De, 1961, ii–iv; see Colas, 1999, 478). What is at issue here is the connection of Bhāgavatism with devotion to ancestors/father. As we saw earlier, the Bhagavadgītā (9.25) distinguishes between pitṛvratas and the devotees of Bhagavant, without opposing them to each other, though the latter group is evidently considered as more fortunate. In his commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, the 8th-century nondualist philosopher Śaṅkara identifies pitṛvratas as the “devotees of the ancestors” (pitṛbhakta) who are “given to ritual acts like reverence to the dead and so forth” (śrāddhādikriyāpara), and those who sacrifice to Bhagavant as Vaiṣṇavas. The Pitṛkalpa portion (of uncertain date) of the Harivaṃśa advocates “reverence for the ancestors” (pitṛbhakti) as a kind of spiritual practice that leads to deliverance ( mokṣa ; Saindon, 1998, 157–162; Colas, 1999). 

Varāhamihira’s Bṛhatsaṃhitā (early 6th cent.) mentions Bhāgavatas (BrhSa. 60.19). It states that Bhāgavatas, like devotees of other gods, should install or cause the installation of the icon of their own god (namely Viṣṇu) with their ritual rules. The significance of the term bhāgavata in this passage is hard to make out; it could refer either to a priestly community or to devotees of the Bhagavant Viṣṇu who patronize the rituals. 

Defining Bhāgavatas 

Bhāgavatas are mentioned in various doxographies and depictions of Vaiṣṇavas at least from the 7th century onward. Bhāgavata has the general meaning of “devotee of Bhagavant” in passages such as chapter 3 of the Viṣṇudharma (predates 11th cent.; Grünendahl’s edition, part 1, 3–19, 71–72). This chapter describes the devotional attitude and worship to be adopted by Bhāgavatas, who are also encouraged to found Viṣṇu temples. But it does not prescribe any formal initiation into a specific group, because it uses bhāgavata simply as a synonym of vaiṣṇava. 

But in several other works predating or dating from around the 10th century, Bhāgavata refers to a specific tradition or is identified with Pāñcarātra. Bāṇa (7th cent.) briefly but clearly distinguishes between Bhāgavatas and Pāñcarātrikas in his Harṣacarita. Śaṅkara (8th cent.) refers to Bhāgavatas in his commentary of the Brahmasūtra (BrSBh. 2.2.42–45) and qualifies them as pāñcarātrasiddhāntin (Colas, 2003, 240). The theogony he attributes to them matches that of the four divine emanations (vyūhas), that is, Vāsudeva, Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, usually associated with Pāñcarātra. Their five phases of the worship (approaching, collection of material of worship, sacrifice, textual study, and meditation) are typical of the Pāñcarātra tradition (see also Vaiṣṇava Saṃhitās). 

According to scholars, the earliest-known literary testimony of the term śrīvaiṣṇava occurs in a work by Tirukkurukaippirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ, the Āṟāyirappaṭi (late 11th cent.), and is a synonym ofbhāgavata (Carman & Narayanan, 1989, 133). In this work, bhāgavata (Tam. pākavatar) designates good and venerable devotees of Viṣṇu. This meaning of the term was confirmed in Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s (c. 1213–1323) works and was still in vogue in the 19th century. The nature of the reverence to Bhāgavatas was a topic of discussion among South Indian Vaiṣṇava authors and became a bone of contention between the Teṉkalai and Vaṭakalai subsects of Śrīvaiṣṇavism(Mumme, 1988, 161ff., 179ff.). The main subject of dispute was whether non-Brahman Bhāgavatas should be venerated by devotees from higher castes. In his Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇa (192–243) Piḷḷai Lokācārya, for instance, places the status of being Bhāgavata above all caste considerations.

Yāmuna (10th–11th cents.), a forerunner of what later came to be known as Viśiṣṭādvaita (seeVedānta), presents a view that is complex and perhaps close to debates in the South Indian Vaiṣṇavism of his period. The Viśiṣṭādvaita system, supported by the socioreligious group of the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, legitimated two corpora of scriptures, the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās and the collection of the Tamil poems of Āḻvārs (Divyaprabandham; see Tamil texts). Yāmuna announces in the introductory and the final verses of his Āgamaprāmāṇya that he composed it to examine and defend the Bhāgavata (also named Sātvata) school against their being regarded (esp. by Mīmāṃsakas [see Mīmāṃsā] and Advaitins [see Vedānta]) as a tradition outside the Veda. The identification of Bhāgavatas and Sātvatas is supported by other statements in the work; Bhāgavatas are said to follow Pāñcarātra scriptures. Yāmuna constructs an ideal notion of Bhāgavata, excluding those whom he considers pseudo-Bhāgavatas from this group. He interprets the term bhāgavata according to conventional (rūḍha) and etymological (yaugika) derivations. In his opinion, the term bhāgavata applies to Vaiśyavrātyas (that is, members of the Vaiśya class who lost their vedic status) only by convention. These so-called Bhāgavatas are servants and temple guards in Bhagavant’s temples, where they perform various secondary tasks such as cleaning and so on, but cannot worship the deity directly (Neevel, 1977, 30–31; Narasimhachary, 1998, 99, 132–135). According to Yāmuna, those who are Brahmans and worship Bhagavant following Pāñcarātra scriptures are the real Bhāgavatas, for etymologically the term designates only this group. However, some of these real Bhāgavatas are wrongly considered to be inferior Brahmans because they officiate as temple priests. Yāmuna argues that they too are genuine vedic Brahmans, because their 40 sacraments are based on the lost Ekāyana vedic tradition (Neevel, 1977, 31–35; see also Kashmir). The Āgamaprāmāṇya alludes to yet another group of Bhāgavatas. They are exemplary learned people (śiṣṭa) whose vedic affiliation is indisputable and who follow the Pāñcarātra path and rituals (Neevel, 1977, 35–37). 

Vaikhānasa texts give various different definitions of Bhāgavatas. Sometimes they include them among Pāñcarātrikas. For instance, the Kriyādhikāra (around 10th cent., i.e. contemporaneous with Yāmuna) defines Bhāgavata as a subgroup of Pāñcarātra. The Pāñcarātra tradition is said to be tāntrika (following a tantric tradition in contrast to the vaidika Vaikhānasa tradition); its prescriptions (vidhi) originate in Veda (vedamūla), and it dispenses initiation (it is dīkṣāyukta). It is of two kinds: pure (śuddha) and mixed (miśra). Pure is identified with Bhāgavata; Sūtas and Sātvatas (both undefined by the text) worship according to the pure, – that is, Bhāgavata – path (mārga). Thus, the Kriyādhikāra does not explicitly exclude them from the vedic fold, in spite of their tāntrika nature. The mixed-path worshippers (miśrapūjaka) are Brahman and other initiated twice-born (viprādi) who have abandoned their vedic school (Colas, 1996, 171). These mixed-path worshippers (though they include Brahmans and direct worshippers of deity, not merely servants) may be analogized to the Vaiśyavrātyas of the Āgamaprāmāṇya, whose conventional denomination as Bhāgavata is challenged by Yāmuna. 

The Ānandasaṃhitā, in contrast, clearly distinguishes Bhāgavatas from the followers of the Pāñcarātra. It classifies Vaiṣṇavas in four categories: Anādivaiṣṇavas (various divine beings), Ādivaiṣṇavas (Vaikhānasas), Avāntaravaiṣṇavas (followers of the Pāñcarātra), and Bhāgavatas. Bhāgavatas are tonsured. They seem to correspond to the non-Vaikhānasa Bhāgavata hermits (vānaprastha) who are described in another passage of the same text as receiving initiation from Vaikhānasa preceptors (Colas, 1996, 172–174, 179–180).

 Interestingly, a doxographical passage in an appendix (of uncertain date) of the Samūrtārcanādhikaraṇa includes Pāñcarātrikas among Bhāgavatas. It presents the Bhāgavata doctrine as one of the vedic systems, along with systems such as Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, and so on. Here bhāgavata appears to be a synonym of vaiṣṇava. The Bhāgavata system is claimed to be the best among the doctrines that “conceive the Brahman as devoid of qualities” (nirguṇabrahmacintaka) for spiritual extinction (nirvāṇa). It consists of two observances – Pāñcarātra and Vaikhānasa (Colas, 1996, 163, 171). 

The Śaṅkaravijaya attributed to one Ānandagiri (unknown date, but later than the 13th-cent. commentator of the same name; Colas, 1996, 174–175) devotes chapter 6 to describe Bhāgavatas and Bhaktas among the groups that wear Vaiṣṇava emblems. As Bhāgavatas are discussed separately, it may be assumed that the author considered them to be different not only from Bhaktas, but also from the Vaiṣṇava, Pāñcarātra, and Vaikhānasa followers who are criticized in chapters 7, 8, and 9, respectively. The Bhāgavata follower is said to be engaged in singing Viṣṇu (kīrtana ), an activity that according to him brings fruits equivalent to the ones brought by studying Veda, going on pilgrimages, and engaging in other holy practices. 

Bhāgavatas in Cambodia 

Cambodian epigraphy testifies to the presence of Bhāgavatism in Southeast Asia (Colas, 2003, 238–239). A mid-7th-century inscription on the stele of Baset mentions a preceptor named Dharmapāla born in a family of Bhāgavatas. He installed an image of Acyuta (probably an aspect of Viṣṇu). The expert in Pāñcarātra worship mentioned in this deteriorated inscription could be the same person (Cœdès, 1942, 193–195). This could attest to the existence of a distinction between, and at the same time association of, Bhāgavata affiliation and Pāñcarātra scriptural and ritual tradition. The Prasat Kok Po Inscription (9th cent.) records that a Bhāgavata named Śrīnivāsakavi, who was the preceptor of Jayavarman III, ritually installed an image of Hari (Viṣṇu) in 857. It also mentions an Amṛtagarbha who bore the title Bhāgavata and was a member of Śrīnivāsakavi’s family (Cœdès & Dupont, 1937, 389–390). Another 9th-century inscription, on the stele of Prasat Komnap, mentions three categories of Vaiṣṇavas to be fed in a Vaiṣṇava monastery (āśrama) funded by Yaśovarman: Bhāgavata, Sātvata, and Pañcarātra (Cœdès, 1932, 88–112). The Bhāgavatas allowed to reside in this monastery are required to perform the rites of the three periods of the day (saṃdhyās), have good conduct and practice textual study, not be householders, restrain their senses, have no other place to reside during the rainy season, and eat one meal per day. 

Bhāgavatas in Modern Times 

Several scholars suggest or even assert that there has been a single homogeneous community named Bhāgavata throughout history up to modern times (Esnoul, 1956, 141, 157; Couture, 2007, 29, 30, 34; discussion in Colas, 2008, 617). However, evidence to support this conjecture is fragile, because, as we saw earlier, the term had different meanings depending on time, place, milieu, and author. There is no extant textual source that explicitly and clearly proclaims to be Bhāgavata or defends the Bhāgavata religion or human group (except the Āgamaprāmāṇya). The interpretation of the title Bhāgavatapurāṇa as Purāṇa of the Bhāgavatas (Renou et al., 1985, 418) is not convincing, because Bhāgavatas are rarely mentioned in this text. The explanation of the title as Purāṇa dedicated to Bhagavant (Burnouf, 1840, cxxxix) appears to be more pertinent. 

J.N. Farquhar’s explanation of Bhāgavata community in An Outline of Religious Literature of India, first published almost a century ago, is a conflation of probable facts and conjectures (1967, 142–143, 181, 233, 297–298) and needs to be read with discernment by scholars. It has been a passage obligé for Indologists and historians of Hinduism interested in Bhāgavatas, even though all did not fully endorse the author’s views (Biardeau, 1994, 2, 4; Couture, 1986, 221–222; Esnoul, 1956, 155–161). J.N. Farquhar differentiates between two meanings of the term: a general epithet for Vaiṣṇavas and a particular community found in most parts of South India during his time. J.N. Farquhar assembles different religious aspects and practices and ascribes them to a single ancient homogeneous community, which he names Bhāgavata. This community, according to him, is a sect of “Vaiṣṇava Smārtas” (see Smārta), distinct from Pāñcarātras and already in existence in the early 6th century. Bhāgavatas venerate Viṣṇu, and their mantra is oṃ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya, but they recognize the equality of Viṣṇu and Śiva and practice vedic rites. They are therefore to be identified as Smārtas. They accept the Smārta worship of the five gods (Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, Sūrya, and Gaṇeśa). They are nondualists (Farquhar refuses to consider Bhāgavata an author who calls himself Bhāgavata because he wrote a Viśiṣṭādvaita work); they work as temple priests (arcakas) in “Śrīvaiṣṇava” temples and have used Vaikhānasa ritual manuals for their rites for centuries. They also have monasteries. J.N. Farquhar attributes to this community (or associates it with) several works such as the Harivaṃśa, Bhāgavatapurāṇa, Skandopaniṣad, Viṣṇusmṛti, Agnipurāṇa, and a Bhāgavatasaṃhitā. In most cases, these attributions and associations are debatable. 

Yet J.N. Farquhar’s account of Bhāgavatas raises several questions. One of them is the identification of Smārta Vaiṣṇavas as a category of Bhāgavatas. For instance, do the Vaiṣṇavas who worshipped five gods (with Viṣṇu in the center) and who were influential at the court of Jaisiṅgh II (1688–1743; Clémentin-Ojha, 1999, 78–79) qualify as Bhāgavatas? A Vaiṣṇava religious tradition (sampradāya), the Bhāgavata Saṃpradāya, which is found in Karnataka, shares several features described by J.N. Farquhar. These Smārtas with a particular devotion to Viṣṇu do not follow the Pāñcarātra but the Śaiva ritual tradition (see Śaiva Āgamas), though incorporating some Pāñcarātra elements. Their historical connection, on the basis of the similarity of name, with the Bhāgavatas of the pre-Christian era is doubtful (Siauve, 1968, 11–12). The name Bhāgavata is also given to a Brahman community whose male members performbhāgavatamēḷa, a particular style of dance drama, in several places in Tamil Nadu. These Bhāgavatas migrated from Andhra to the Thanjavur area in the 18th century under the patronage of Thanjavur Marathas and seem to have intermarried with local Smārta Brahmans. The bhāgavatamēḷa is enacted in Vaiṣṇava temples, and its repertoire is in Telugu language (Inoue, 2008). 

Conclusion 

The picture of Bhāgavatas emerging from this article is evidently fragmentary. The termbhāgavata, employed in a general sense or to refer to a member of a specific religious group, also received different connotations depending on the ideological or sectarian predilection. The notion of a single Bhāgavata community or sect that might have crossed centuries, even with possible changes, can hardly be admitted at the present stage of research. The only historically incontestable fact is that Bhāgavata was a socially valued name or title.