Talk:Puranas/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Removed sentence
2 Major reworking necessary
3 Entry rewritten
4 Deleted link to copyright-infringing site
5 Bhavishya Purana

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)