As Buddha is mentioned in the Bhagavatam does it prove that it was written after the time of Buddha?

From: ANIL V UMESH

In Srimad Bhagavatam Lord Buddha is mentioned as one of the Avataras of Lord Krishna. Atheists took this as an opportunity to point out that mentioning  of Lord Buddha in the holy scripture  clearly establish that Srimad Bhagavatam was written not during Bhagwan Vyasa’s time five thousand years ago but later during A.D ie. medieval times. Please  clear the doubt.

Question by Anil Veomish in Srimad Bhagavatam.
Lord Buddha is mentioned as one of the avatars of Lord Krishna. Atheists take this as an opportunity to point out the mentioning of Lord Buddha in the holy scripture. Clearly established that Srimad Bhagavatam was written not during Bhagwan Vyas time 5000 years ago but later during AD i.e. medieval times.
Please clear the doubt. Answer. The mention of Buddha is a prediction.
It is not a historical record which happened after the event took place. The Bhagavatam mentions predictions also in terms of talking about the incarnation of Kalki in Kali Yuga and 12th canto where the predictions are further described. So essentially the atheistic, materialistic, skeptical way of looking at scripture is to think that they are of mundane origin and therefore anything that seems to contradict conventional notions, normal notions of how we acquire knowledge they try to explain by reducing it down to the material level.
So anything that seems like a prediction just make it a historical record and how do you make it a historical record? By saying that it was written afterwards. So the taking of the Vedic scriptures is a very complex subject as far as the modern academic perspectives are concerned. His Holiness Deva Amrit Maharaj and his con-scholar who is a master from Yale University has said that has written a book called Searching for Vedic India in which he gives an excellent overview of all the problems with dating.
Actually in the Vedic tradition even after Vyas they put the literature down into written form the written manuscripts were not written in such a way they could be preserved for a long time. In fact the hot tropical atmosphere of India makes manuscripts impossible to preserve for a long time. So what are the ways in which academic scholars can find out the dates? One is they look at the oldest manuscripts that are there.
Second is they look at the references to events that are there and then they try to check when these events happened and then they say okay because this event happened this time therefore this book must have been written after this time. So these are just ways in which what cannot be known they try to know. What cannot be known reliably they try to know.
So like that there are various ways in which scholars try to date this and actually there are scholars themselves who have admitted that the date of the scriptures is the date of the Puranas and the general Vedic literature is the dating is shrouded in terrifying darkness. Even Max Muller he gave some date to the Rig Veda which has been accepted more or less by mainstream scholars but subsequently he said that we can never know actually what the date of the Vedas was but that statement of his which was actually written down by him that has been neglected by scholars and the earlier date which he had ascribed has been accepted. Now actually if we look back at the basis for the dates that’s all very speculative.
So in general as devotees we need to understand that these are two different worldviews and the academic worldview which focuses on dating scriptures in a particular way is not definitely not foolproof reliable that’s from even from the factual point of view and from the point of view of devotion it is definitely undesirable because there is no devotion involved at all in it. So we want to study scriptures so that we can know God not just know about God. I have talked elsewhere about how a doctor knows a child in an entirely different way from the way the mother knows the child.
So doctor may know some precise facts but those are not important as far as developing a relationship with the child is concerned. That the mother knows her child so we want to know God not know about God. We want to know scripture not just know about scripture.
That’s why we understand that the scriptures come from a divine source and they contain predictions and we need to study the scriptures from those who are living according to scriptures and are transforming their lives based on the scriptures. Satsvarupa Maharaj one of his consigness sannyasis writes about how he was earlier a writer even before he was introduced to Krishna Consciousness and he had respect for writers. One time he went to he was after he wrote his book Elements of Vedic Thought he was invited to an academy scholars conference and there he found that all the big names of Indology were there and he was a bit out to go there.
But he went as a sannyasi with his book and based on his book and then he found his scholars what were they? One of them was a big scholar in Buddha and he said you know Buddha there’s no evidence that he really existed or not all the evidence is debatable. Another said that if Buddha existed his intelligence didn’t exist. Why did he have to give up such a beautiful wife and a prosperous kingdom and go and perform such terrible austerities? And basically all of them went drinking and they were flippant about the subject matters and they had nothing spiritual in their lifestyle at all.
And then Satsvarupa Maharaj from that time I have never been able to take the scholars seriously. Not taking the scholars seriously means that their scholarship may have some valid points but we are not here we want our life to be transformed by the study of scripture and people who have such a derisive attitude towards scriptural subjects how can they be authorities for us in transforming our lives? So best to not get into the zone of conflicting about dates and recognize that two points that the dating itself is very unreliable it just can’t be known because when the knowledge is originally written down if there are no manuscripts from that time how will we actually come to know from an empirical point of view? And so we can’t know so the scholars have no right to say that they are right and secondly we can’t find out we won’t get any transformation by sticking to this materialistic reinterpretation of devotional history. Therefore we have to focus on the devotional understanding and transform our life thereof.