Talk:Puranas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
???	This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Contents 1 Removed sentence 2 Major reworking necessary 3 Entry rewritten 4 Deleted link to copyright-infringing site 5 Bhavishya Purana 6 Pauranic classification 7 Incorrect list of mahapuranas 8 Itihasa Purana 9 Vishnudharmottara Purana

[edit] Removed sentence

I removed this sentence from the intro because it didn't seem to fit and it doesn't really make a lot of sense: "Sage Vyasa is credited with compilation of Puranas from age Yuga to age, and for the current age, he has been identified and named Krishna Dvaipayana, the son of sage Parashara." uriah923^(talk) 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major reworking necessary

The article is written from the perspective of a pious believer and generally does not correspond to accepted scholarship on the Puranas. Rather than e.g. "presenting the essence of the Vedas" (whatever is meant by that), the Puranas are generally seen as the embodiment of a new and vastly different form of religion than that of the Vedas (see e.g. Gavin Flood An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge U.P. ch. 5). Generally, only politically/ideologically slanted Hindu insiders' perspectives tend to suggest that there is such a strong continuity with the Vedas.

There is a continuity with the Vedas, but only it's not very obvious. The idea of Vishnu or Shiva being supreme was not present in the earlies Samhitas, but it was already beginning to evolve in the later texts that were attached to each Veda.--Grammatical error 09:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

there is of course continuity: re-interpretation presupposes continuity. Yes, the Puranas constitute a radical reinterpretation of Vedic religion, but of course they maintain that their interpretation had been the original intention of the Vedas all along. So it is not biased to say that the Puranas claim to present the essence of the Vedas. I see nothing wrong with the statement unless a claim is snuck into the article that this is in any way "true" in an absolute sense. The focus of this article should be to treat Puranic views, which can be done independent of a comparison with historical Vedic religion. The gap between the Vedas and the Puranas is about as large as that between Genesis and Thomas Aquinas' Summa. Of course there is continuity between Genesis and Thomas, and Thomas' theology is still written from a completely different age, worldview and mindset than Genesis. That doesn't mean that Thomas is somehow a "fake" when commenting on Genesis: He is just a medieval scholar commenting an Iron Age text, and exactly the same holds for the Puranas too. dab (ᛏ) 11:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry rewritten

I completely rewrote the article, as it was rather misleading. I hope some more competent persons will be able to improve upon my efforts.Nivsavariego 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite an impressive rewrite, Nivsavariego. In general, a lot cleaner. I see a few issues I think need addressing. In particular, the idea that virtually any writing could be called a "Purana"--though that has a truth to it--seems overemphasized. All in all, though, good work!

Cordially

O Govinda 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, O Govinda. You have a point, but I am not sure how to rephrase the sentence, while keeping the sense of fluidity and conflicting political motivations which I think is essentail for understanding the Hindu world. Thank you also for the improvements in the layout. Nivsavariego 18:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've further reworked the article (though to a much lesser extent). Especially, I've tried to clarify that the Mahapuranas and Upapuranas are the main "Puranic" works. I've also done some adding, subtracting, sourcing, cleanup, and so on. Respectfully, O Govinda 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted link to copyright-infringing site

I have deleted a link to bhagavata.org.

The site knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text belonging to the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works.

Respectfully, O Govinda 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bhavishya Purana

The article says it is pro-Christian yet this is not the case. Christians are reffered to as mlecchas (foreigner/barabarian) in the text. Hence I'm removing the last two sentences and the citation, for the moment. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is pro christian in the sense that it depicts christian 'mlecchas' as less polluting than muslim ones (Mohammad is called Maha-Mada, while Jesus is called Isha). It is still a Brahmin work. I think removing the citation is wrong because some websites promote this purana as evidence for Jesus' visit to India etc., it is improtant to note that Jesus is mentioned alongside Queen Victoria, hinting at a recent composition. Nivsavariego 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pauranic classification

Obviously the classification to Sattva, Rajas and Tamas is just one of many different classifications available for the Puranas. The classification given by the article will probably be disputed by other Puranas, depending on their secterian affiliation. I think it is better just to supply a list of the Mahapuranas, and leave it at that. But I've already deleted such classification once, and it seems futile to do it again. If a person reads for the first time about the Puranas, why should he think that some Puranas are related to Darkness? this is secterian point of view. I leave it to others, more knowledgeable persons to decide. Respectfuly Nivsavariego 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The classification we have comes from an authoritative source, the Padma Purana. If someone wishes to bring forward a different but equally authoritative classification, fine. Otherwise, what we have ought to stand.

Respectfully, O Govinda 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Padma Purana an authoritative source? What does this classification mean? Will it mean anything to a reader of this article? Note that in it Vaishnavite Puranas are related to 'Goodness' and Shaivite Puranas to 'Ignorance'. Note also that the user of this modification is called 'O Govinda', a Vaishnavite name (with a bhakti tinge).

I am also a Vaishnavite in my outlook, what has that to do with the content of a Wikipedia article?

It is obvious that a Shhaivite Purana will give a different classification, I can verify it and post it here, but how will this help us?

This has been a personal lesson for me about Wikipedia, anarchy is a good thing, but it is not reliable.

Nivsavariego 12:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But it makes sense that Brahma is the creator thus Rajas considering the idea of desire. Vishnu the preserver thus Sattva. Shiva the destroyer thus Tamas. If one thinks of ignorance as bad then they misunderstand and perhaps that should be clarified as no one of the others can exist without the other two, i.e "goodness" cannot exist without "ignorance" and "passion". And to achieve liberation one must pass beyond all three. I should also mention that the Srimad Devi Bhagawatam claims to be a Mahapurana, maybe because the Devi is beyond all three and also is them all. After all she is Brahman as are we all. :)

I'm not Hindu, but I've been reading about Hinduism. If I sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, that's probably the case. That said, it looks to me like the issue is less the classification than the translation. The division into the three groups of mahapuranas is not meant to morally judge, so far as I can tell. The sattva mahapuranas deal primarily with creation stories and tend to praise Brahma most. The rajas mahapuranas tend to emphasize the avatara of Visnu and, hence, concentrate most on him. The tamas puranas deal most with ritual and practices. Why that gets linked with Siva, I don't know. Perhaps the classification scheme should be left, but the names for the gunas left untranslated. There is a link to the article "Guna", and the article seems to more or less fairly explain what the words imply. Ansat 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This classification is by Vaishnavas and is therefore valid for Vaishnavas only. Have you seen any of the Shaiva puranas classify themselves as tamasic? On the contrary, they actually place Shiva above Vishnu and consider themselves to be right on top. In short, this classification is sectarian and does not belong here, unless you also clarify the Vaishnava/Shaiva disagreement in India and make it clear that this classification is not accepted by a significant number of people. Shvushvu 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect list of mahapuranas

1) The list of 18 mahapuranas is not mentioned.

The list of 20 puranas currently on this page is the opinion of a certain scholar and is not universally accepted. He may choose to add Harivamsa to the list or even the Mahabharata, but that is his own creation and should be made clear or even better - his opinion should be replaced with the correct list of 18 Puranas.

2) The Shiva Purana is not a major Purana. It is actually the Vayu that figures in the list. The Vaayu Purana is Shaiva in nature and hence it is referred to as the "Shaiva Purana" in some lists which has led to this confusion. The Shiva Purana - although popular - is a Upa-Purana probably composed during the 12th century AD. Refer to R.C. Hazra and others for more details. Shvushvu 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

as the article states, there are various conflicting lists, and the 20 Puranas listed combine several lists of 18. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion of there being only 18 (maha)puranas is itself a sectarian Vaishnava dogma, like the supposed authoritativeness of the Padmapurana to pronounce on puranas in general. One does well to read Pargiter's discussion of the genealogies in the various puranas - it's a good indication of their interrelationships as far as truly traditional material is concerned. rudra 06:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

could you be bothered to look at Harivamsha Purana, rudra? I made it a redirect to Jinasena which was the only article on Wikipedia even mentioning the text, but that article is in complete disarray. It even seems to think "the Mahapurana" is a specific text. Its only reference being "Anne E. Monius, Love, Violence, and the Aesthetics of disgust" seems somewhat dodgy. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I'm out of my depth here. There seems to be a confusion of names, AFAICS. The traditional harivaṃśa is an appendix to the Mahabharata (<== btw, someone seems to have nuked this page). There is also a harivaṃśa by Jinasena that is, AFAIK, a Jain work. So, neither would strictly qualify as a purana. "Harivamsa Purana" sounds like a neologism, though I could easily be wrong. I'd take it to mean the Mbh one, in which case the Jinasena connection is likely false. rudra 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

we shouldn't feature "Harivamsha Purana" as a Mahapurana then. We have an article no the Harivamsha itself of course, but I don't suppose this is intended. dab (𒁳) 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be, though. As long as the list is verified, I think it's safer to link the "Harivamsha Purana" entry to the Harivamsha page, rather than to Jinasena. Or, make the "Harivamsha Purana" page a disambiguation point, pointing to both Jinasena and Harivamsha. The loose end is that the Jinasena page, which itself has a link to Harivamsha Purana that currently amounts to a circular redirect back to itself. rudra 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

we'd need some reference either way, for Jinasena, and for the Harivamsha being considered a "Purana" (by whom?) dab (𒁳) 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered that I have a copy of Dimmitt & van Buitenen :-). In the introduction, they write: "Among the large mass of Purān.ic texts, eighteen have been singled out as Great Purān.as, great in the sense that they have an all-Indian acceptance. Each of these provides a list of all eighteen, including itself, but while these lists overwhelmingly agree, there are minor discrepancies. The result is a list of twenty:", followed by just the names (i.e "X", not "X Purāna") in Roman alphabetic order. So it seems that the Harivamsha in question is the Mbh appendix, with no connection to Jinasena. The way to fix this, I think, is to remove "Purana" from the list, leaving just the names, and link to the Harivamsha article. rudra 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And immediately after the list, they write: "In some of the texts an attempt is made to divide these eighteen into three neat sets of six each; it is said that they divide either according to their inspiration by one of the triad of Gods (Brahmā, Viṣṇu or Śiva), or according to the particular "quality" (guṇa) that informs them( sattva, rajas or tamas). However, neither title nor classification of the individual Purāṇas gives an accurate description of their contents." rudra 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that the sattva=Vishnu, rajas=Brahma, tamas=Shiva "equations" were a transparent Vaishnava sectarian put-down of Saivas. :-) rudra 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks, it is clear now that the Harivamsa is intended. I only knew the "Mahabharata appendix" aspect, but it appears that is secondary, and at least part of the text can be classified as a Purana. And there are (non-Sanskrit) Jaini texts with the same name. I've edited Harivamsa accordingly and made Harivamsa Purana a dab page. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itihasa Purana

The Moghe 1997 reference needs to be checked, as the paraphrase of the material seems confused.

• The Nirukta citation is flat out wrong: the phrase itihāsa purāṇa does not occur even once. In fact purāṇa is used throughout in the ordinary adjectival sense of "ancient, old". This is not surprising, as purāṇa is used as the defining word in the Naighantuka (synonym list) for the synonyms of "ancient" (N.3.19). And itihāsa is used throughout in the sense of "legend, tale" (stories are often introduced with the stock phrase tatretihāsamācakṣate, "with reference to this, they relate a legend").

• N.1.16 has neither word at all let alone the phrase, but it does have pārovaryavid "scholars of tradition", and thus the concept, via the term pārovarya.
• N.12.10 only has itihāsa, as part of the stock phrase tatre... and in the form aitihāsikāḥ(which also is found in 12.1 and possibly 2.16 depending on recension).

• "Fifth veda" (itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamam) is in the ChU, not the BAU. Both have lists (of things to study or know), and all but one of the references given are to those lists, in which these words appear.

• BAU 2.4.10 and 4.5.11 are parallel passages in the two versions of the Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi colloquy.
• BAU 4.1.2 is Y. to King Janaka.
• The lists in 4.1.2 and 4.5.11 are the same, the one in 2.4.10 is truncated. In all three, Radhakrishnan reads itihāsa and purāṇam as separate words rather than a phrase.
• Similarly, the lists in ChU 7.1.2-4, 7.2.1 and 7.7.1 are identical, as part of the Sanatkumara-Narada colloquy.
• ChU 3.4.1-2 is an interesting read: as part of a sustained bandhu meditation, it suggests that itihāsa and purāṇam (separate categories here) are the province of Atharvavedins.

It might also help to give the name of the real author, as Moghe's book seems to be a collection of articles, with him as the editor. rudra 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've since learned that Moghe's book is a selection of PV Kane's writings. That is about as authoritative as it gets. I'm pretty much convinced that the material has been mangled in the transfer here, but I'd like to be sure before making the needed edits. rudra 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Found the book!:-) The passage seems to have been muddled since the first edit, which had it basically right. It's from a paper by Kane titled "The Mahābhārata and Ancient Dharmasūtras", the only biblio for which Moghe gives as "Thomos Commemoration Volume, 1939"(?). The paper is about verses common to the Mahābhārata on one side, and on the other, Patanjali's Mahābhāṣya and the Dharmasūtras of Āpastamba, Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha. His basic conclusion is that itihāsa and purāṇa definitely existed as (revered) genres in Vedic times, but the relationship with surviving works is tenuous (he quotes ChU.7.1.2,4 and BAU.2.4.10 in footnotes, and his references to SBE Vol. 44 pp. 98, 369 decode to ŚBM 11.5.6.8, 13.4.3.12-13):

"We know from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (SBE Vol. 44, pp. 98, 369) that even in its days Itihāsa was spoken of as Veda and the same itihāsa was recited in the Aśvamedha sacrifice on the nights called pāriplava. In the oldest Upaniṣads like Chāndogya (III.4.1 and 2, VII.1.2 and 4, VII.2.1, VII.7.1) Itihāsa-Purāṇa is mentioned. From the manner in which Itihāsa-Purāṇa is mentioned it follows that Itihāsa-Purāṇa was a body of literature almost as sacred as the four Vedas and held to be almost as ancient. In the Brhadāranyaka Upaniṣad (II.4.10, IV.1.2 and IV.5.11) also Itihāsa and Purāṇa are practically given the same status as the four Vedas. What the Itihāsa and Purāṇa of those days contained cannot be ascertained. Those works are irretrievably lost. Śankarācārya had the insight to see that in the passages of the Upaniṣads itihāsa and purāṇa could not refer to the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas that were extant in his day and so he explains (on BrUp, II.4.10) itihāsa as Brāhmaṇa passages (e.g. Śatapatha, XI.5.1) such as the dialogue of Urvaśī and Purūravas, and purāṇa as such cosmological accounts as 'In the beginning this world was non-existent'. It seems that there were in the times of the oldest Upaniṣads probably two works closely connected that contained historical, legendary and cosmological matters. When such ancient works as the ĀpDhS refer to purāṇa (in the singular) they probably refer to the Purāṇa that was intended by the Chāndogya Upaniṣad or its subsequent recast and that they quote the verses from that very ancient work. It is equally possible that there was originally one work called Itihāsa-Purāṇa and that subsequently it was split up into two (itihāsa and purāṇa) and later into several itihāsas and purāṇas. The Taittiriya Āranyaka (II.9-10) mentions Itihāsas and Purāṇas after the Brāhmaṇas. This is probably a later interpolation in that work. The Nirukta (in I.16 and XII.10) speaks of aitihāsikas and frequently says "They tell the following story" (tatra itihāsam... ācakṣate). It probably refers to the ancient work called itihāsa. Patañjali (Mahābhāṣya, Vol. II, p.234) derives the words aitihāsika and paurāṇika. Therefore it may be conjectured that the itihāsa of the Upaniṣad period was gradually incorporated into what became the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇa of that period was expanded into the several Purāṇas of later days. Therefore the original kernel of the Mahābhārata was the itihāsa mentioned in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Upaniṣads and that the Dharmasūtras present a few of the verses contained in that ancient work, which were retained in the next version of the itihāsa and so are found even now. The fact that several hundred verses occur in the Mahābhārata as well as in the Manusmrti and the Dharmasūtras is to be explained as due to the same family (probably of the Bhṛgus) having devoted itself to the cultivation of the Itihāsa-Purāṇa and Dharmasūtra literature. The Manusmrti originally might have contained verses in the Triṣṭubh metre, but subsequently when the final redaction was made about the beginning of the Christian era, there was a uniform employment of the Anuṣṭubh metre. It is due to this that in the ancient Dharmasūtras like Vasiṣṭha verses in the Triṣṭubh metre as quoted as Mānava-ślokas (as in VaDhS, 19.37)."

A lot of stuff, but so intricately interrelated that I've elected to quote the passage in toto than summarize it. The really substantive conclusion is while the genre is very old, most of what we have today does not go all that far back. rudra 05:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vishnudharmottara Purana

Would someone clarify for me whether the Vishnudharmottara Purana is the same as the Vishnu Purana or a different text entirely? thanks --Joopercoopers 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are different works, the Vishnudharmottara Purana being a treatise on the arts. It is available in PDF form here

Buddhipriya 00:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Many thanks - I'll leave it as a redlink then. --Joopercoopers 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stubbed out the article. Interesting to see the reference to it from the Taj Mahal article. Buddhipriya 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)