• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do you approach the Puranas?

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
I have usually stayed away from the Puranas, because I have seen them as nothing more than sectarian books of myths, legends, stories mixed with history and misc stuff. I have also been uncomfortable about who has authored them, or they based on on actual stories going back into ancient times, perhaps to IVC or they are made up recently. For example does it not make you a bit uncomfortable that childhood stories about Krishna are absent in the Mahabharata, where Krishna is first described? The Krishna in the Srimad Bhagvata Purana is so different to the Krishna of the Mahabharata?

The other thing that makes me uncomfortable about Puranas is that they are open source, they have been continuously updated as far as up to the 16th century, and I wonder edited by who? Like you will see mention of temples in the Puranas that were not built until like the middles ages, which clearly shows the details were added later. What else was added latter? Were the stories that glorify different deities also added later?

The sectarianism is also a problem. It is clear from reading the Puranas there is some kind of conflict between the Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta sects. You see stories in the Vasihnava Puranas of how Vishnu is supreme over Shiva, or Shiva is his greatest devotee; and in Shiva Puranas you see stories of how Shiva is greater. This makes me think all the stories are just made up by the respective sect to glorify their deity. If that is made up, what else is made up?

You also see philosophical battles in the Puranas e.g. Buddha becomes the deceiver who has come to teach an atheist doctrine to the non believers, but is bringing them to Hinduism. He is also included as one of the Ten avatars. There are similar attacks on Samkhya, such as rejecting the original Kapila of the classical Samkhya philosophy by saying he was some imposter and the original Kapila taught a theistic Samkhya and devotion to Vishnu. Also the co-opting of classical Yoga and the justification of bhakti as highest yoga --- most of this is in the Srimad Bhagvatam. This tells me that there was some anxiety for the authors to assimilate the other philosophical schools.

I also have a problem with the hagiography, the claim that the Puranas were edited at the same time as the Vedas by Vyassa, when it is clear from scholarship they were composed all after CE as far as 10th century in different centuries.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Being uncomfortable is a sign of ignorance. I approach them as I would have approached my grandfather, as a teacher or a guide. Tomes of wisdom if I can understand them.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Being uncomfortable is a sign of ignorance. .

Or it's a healthy dose of skepticism. What makes a person uncomfortable is a personal matter, and varies by degrees. Non-Hindus are uncomfortable in Hindu temples, as they should be. There are lots of things in Hinduism that I'm 'uncomfortable' with. So it also depends on what you actually mean by 'uncomfortable'. Not hate, but more along the lines of, "That's just not my cup of tea."
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Or it's a healthy dose of skepticism. What makes a person uncomfortable is a personal matter, and varies by degrees.

I will give you an example of something that does make me uncomfortable:

Earth’s total height is 70,000 Yojans. In her depth, are situated seven nether worlds with a depth of 10,000 Yojans each respectively. Names of these seven nether worlds are Atal, Vital, Nital, Gamastimaan, Mahaatal, Sutal and Paatal. These nether worlds have beautiful palaces, and have lands which are white, black, red and yellow in colour with gravel, rocky and golden soil. Scores of races including Daanav, Daitya, Yaksha and Naagas live there.

Maitreya says- "O Brahmin! Kindly narrate now about the celestial worlds and the position of stars and planets there." Parashar says- At a height of 1,00,000 Yojans above the earth is the sphere of the Sun. 1,00,000 Yojans above it is the sphere of the Moon and 1,00,000 Yojans above it is the sphere of the stars. At a height of 2,00,000 Yojans above, the sphere of stars is Buddh (Mercury) and 2,00,000 Yojans above it is Shukra (Venus). Above Venus are Mangal (Mars), Brihaspati (Jupiter), and Shani (Saturn) at respective heights of 2,00,000 Yojans each. 1,00,000 Yojans above the Saturn is Saptarishi and 1,00,000 Yojans above it is the sphere of Dhruv. It appears as the centre of a bright ring.

Each yojana is equivalent of 14.6 km

Actual figures:

Earth's radius: 6371km
Moon's distance from Earth: 384,400km
Sun's distance from Earth: 149.6 million km
Closest star's distance from Earth: 40 trillion km
Mercury distance from Earth: 77 million km

We can clearly see the Puranic astronomy is wrong. We can also see implicit in the astronomy a concept of a flat earth, where distance of planets and stars is measured in terms of height, assuming that each planet and star is above one another. Now, we shouldn't be too harsh on the Puranic authors for not knowing astronomy as we do today, but it does reveal that they are not divine revelation, but the works of premodern people who were ignorant about geography and astronomy and made it up.

Does that not make you uncomfortable even a wee bit?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Or it's a healthy dose of skepticism. What makes a person uncomfortable is a personal matter, and varies by degrees.

It could also be an initial unfamiliarity. There are parts of pujas and worship I've been uncomfortable with because it was new to me. For example, circumambulating the sanctum while following the vahana for seeveli, and trying to sing the Sri Guruvayurappan Pancharatnam Stotram made me very uncomfortable (and still does to a small degree), because I feel "on display", though of course, it's not about me. Eventually those discomforts go away. :)

Does that not make you uncomfortable even a wee bit?

Not necessarily. The reason is that I don't take the Puranas literally, despite the name meaning 'history'. I think they are fairly bursting with metaphors, allegories, lessons, morality tales, and more. They also have to be viewed in the context of their times and locations.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Does that not make you uncomfortable even a wee bit?

It may have at one time, but it certainly doesn't now. I'm personally over that. Yes it is incorrect, but its also irrelevant (to me). Just as the Koran or Bible don't bother me. What you don't know about can't bother you.

However ... it does bother me when other people who take them literally get really angry at me if I say I don't. Heck, to each his own ... already and some more.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
It could also be an initial unfamiliarity. There are parts of pujas and worship I've been uncomfortable with because it was new to me. For example, circumambulating the sanctum while following the vahana for seeveli, and trying to sing the Sri Guruvayurappan Pancharatnam Stotram made me very uncomfortable (and still does to a small degree), because I feel "on display", though of course, it's not about me. Eventually those discomforts go away. :)

In this case it is more cognitive discomforts -- sort of like you know something is untrue, but you still find some way to rationalise it.

Not necessarily. The reason is that I don't take the Puranas literally, despite the name meaning 'history'. I think they are fairly bursting with metaphors, allegories, lessons, morality tales, and more. They also have to be viewed in the context of their times and locations.

I agree that they are full of metaphors, allegories, lessons, morality tales etc -- but it is hard to passages like I cited above as symbolic or allegory -- because they are more like statements of facts moon is x miles above earth, sun y x miles.... venus is z miles. The fact that is we know this all made up, which points to the obvious human authorship and as you said the human authorship needs to be seen in terms of the times and location --- but seeing it as that means it cant be taken as scripture, it ceases having authority as being revealed. It seems more like an attempt of people living in the middle ages to understand their world.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
In this case it is more cognitive discomforts -- sort of like you know something is untrue, but you still find some way to rationalise it.

OK, I can appreciate that. However, it's largely the reason I've learned to take things at face value.

I agree that they are full of metaphors, allegories, lessons, morality tales etc -- but it is hard to passages like I cited above as symbolic or allegory -- because they are more like statements of facts moon is x miles above earth, sun y x miles.... venus is z miles. The fact that is we know this all made up, which points to the obvious human authorship and as you said the human authorship needs to be seen in terms of the times and location --- but seeing it as that means it cant be taken as scripture, it ceases having authority as being revealed. It seems more like an attempt of people living in the middle ages to understand their world.

It's contradictory based on what we know today. Though in all fairness 1,000 years from now our descendants (if any) may laugh at the things we came up with.

Consider that the Puranas are not revealed, as are the Vedas and Upanishads. As the Wiki article states: The Puranic literature is encyclopedic,[1] and it includes diverse topics such as cosmogony, cosmology, genealogies of gods, goddesses, kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, folk tales, pilgrimages, temples, medicine, astronomy, grammar, mineralogy, humor, love stories, as well as theology and philosophy.[2][4][5] The content is highly inconsistent across the Puranas, and each Purana has survived in numerous manuscripts which are themselves inconsistent.[3] The Hindu Puranas are anonymous texts and likely the work of many authors over the centuries; in contrast, most Jaina Puranas can be dated and their authors assigned.[3]

As Tolkien wrote (Gandalf speaking to Saruman): "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom". I'm not saying you're not wise... this applies to all of us... rather, this is all the more reason to just take them at face value and not overthink them.
 

Jedster

Flying through space
...

As Tolkien wrote (Gandalf speaking to Saruman): "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom". I'm not saying you're not wise... this applies to all of us... rather, this is all the more reason to just take them at face value and not overthink them.

Yes, sometimes we can think(or talk) a thing to death. Sometimes shallow can be deep.
 

निताइ dasa

Nitai's servant's servant
srimad bhagavatam pramanam amalam

Srimad Bhagavatam is the perfect proof. (in my opinion at least)

There you have it. I would rather read Srimad Bhagavatam again and again then touch even the Vedas and the Upanishads ahahaha. Our schools gives Srimad Bhagavatam a status higher then even sruti (for various reasons, including authorship by Vyasa). Give me Bhagavatam, and I'll have all the philosophy I will ever need.

Once of our acharyas sings,

vicara koriya mane, bhakti rasa ashvadane, tare srestha sri bhagavatam purana

"considering in my mind, I know that the best scripture for tasting the mellows of Bhakti rasa is Srimad Bhagavatam"

As for Puranic cosmology, I would highly recommend reading Surya Siddhanta (with the commentary of Bhaktisiddhanta). That book has helped to understand Puranic Cosmology so much. The puranas don't look as space like modern scientists do. In addition to heavily symbolism, there is also a great deal of difference in how space itself is perceived in the Puranas. Its too complex to go into here, so I'll just leave the following article about it:

How is Space in Śrimad Bhāgavatam Different from Space in Modern Science?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
It is certainly different, but that does not diminish the value of Srimad Bhagawat Purana for a Hindu.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I've read snippets. Not really a particularly important thing in my family, really. Although there are enough TV shows about the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Krishna tales and Shiva "stories" to gain a passing knowledge though. :shrug:
Eh, they are what you make of them I guess?
 

DeviChaaya

Jai Ambe Gauri
Premium Member
As they were intended; not as history but as an explanation of the lofty precepts of the Vedas in a simple way for the average working person to understand and without that social sanctions that surrounded the learning of the Vedas. This is mentioned in every single purana at the start, I believe.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
I have usually stayed away from the Puranas, because I have seen them as nothing more than sectarian books of myths, legends, stories mixed with history and misc stuff. I have also been uncomfortable about who has authored them, or they based on on actual stories going back into ancient times, perhaps to IVC or they are made up recently. For example does it not make you a bit uncomfortable that childhood stories about Krishna are absent in the Mahabharata, where Krishna is first described? The Krishna in the Srimad Bhagvata Purana is so different to the Krishna of the Mahabharata?

The other thing that makes me uncomfortable about Puranas is that they are open source, they have been continuously updated as far as up to the 16th century, and I wonder edited by who? Like you will see mention of temples in the Puranas that were not built until like the middles ages, which clearly shows the details were added later. What else was added latter? Were the stories that glorify different deities also added later?

The sectarianism is also a problem. It is clear from reading the Puranas there is some kind of conflict between the Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta sects. You see stories in the Vasihnava Puranas of how Vishnu is supreme over Shiva, or Shiva is his greatest devotee; and in Shiva Puranas you see stories of how Shiva is greater. This makes me think all the stories are just made up by the respective sect to glorify their deity. If that is made up, what else is made up?

You also see philosophical battles in the Puranas e.g. Buddha becomes the deceiver who has come to teach an atheist doctrine to the non believers, but is bringing them to Hinduism. He is also included as one of the Ten avatars. There are similar attacks on Samkhya, such as rejecting the original Kapila of the classical Samkhya philosophy by saying he was some imposter and the original Kapila taught a theistic Samkhya and devotion to Vishnu. Also the co-opting of classical Yoga and the justification of bhakti as highest yoga --- most of this is in the Srimad Bhagvatam. This tells me that there was some anxiety for the authors to assimilate the other philosophical schools.

I also have a problem with the hagiography, the claim that the Puranas were edited at the same time as the Vedas by Vyassa, when it is clear from scholarship they were composed all after CE as far as 10th century in different centuries.
I have never read the Puranas, my knowledge of Hinduism comes from associations during my childhood in India with sadhus and the festivals that mark the Hindu way of life, and the epics of Ramayana and the Mahabharrata (incorporating the Gita obviously). Studying of the Puranas to me gives one a scholarly account of the depth of Hinduism but are not essential because it diverts attention from life experiences which teaches us much more about religion and dharma.
 
Top