• 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!

Oddities of Various Purana-s

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Namaste,

Padma Purana 6.236.7

mayavadam asac chastram pracchannam bauddham uchyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana rupina

"Mayavada or Advaita philosophy is an impious, wicked belief and against all the conclusions of the Vedas. It is only covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in Kali-Yoga I assume the form of a brahmana (Adi Shankara) and teach this imagined philosophy.

I fail to see anything "divine" about the above. Not only is it a dead give away that this was probably polemics gone Indically haywire...but, this verse is quite an insulting one.

Padma Purana 6.236.8-9

apartham sruti-vakyanam darsayan loka-garhitam
sva-karma-rupam tyajya tvam atraiva pratipadyate

sarva-karma paribhrastair vaidharma tvam tad ucyate
paresa-jiva-paraikyam maya tu pratipadyate

"This mayavada advaita philosophy preached by me (in form of Adi Shankara) deprives the words of the holy texts of their actual meaning and thus it is condemned in the world. It recommends the renunciation of one's own duties, since those who have fallen from their duties say that the giving up of duties is religiosity. In this way, I have also falsely propounded the identity of the Supreme Lord and the individual soul."

What!?

Padma Purana 6.236.10

brahmanas caparam rupam nirgunam vaksyate maya
sarva-svam jagato py asya mohanartham kalu yuge

"In order to bewilder the atheists, in Kali-yuga, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Gauranga Krishna to be without any form and without qualities."

Ah, so the plot thickens!!

Padma Purana,
Uttara Khanda Chapters 235-236

Those who have no devotion for the Lord are said to be pasandi. One who behaves as he likes and offers oblations in to the fire for the worship of deities other than Lord Vishnu should be known as a pasandi, for Lord Vishnu is the enjoyer of fruit of all sacrifices and is the deity of brahmanas. He who considers Lord Vishnu as equal to other deities such as Brahma and myself, Rudra,should always be called a pasandi.

:facepalm:

Too bad none of it has any sanctioning from any Vedangic theological school of Shrautic tradition. Otherwise...oh never mind.

I shall post more quotes from other Purana-s later. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the above, ha.
 
Last edited:

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Are these translated by Prabhupada? He liked using the word Mayavadi.
 

Fireside_Hindu

Jai Lakshmi Maa
I think perhaps with so many puranas - many of which have unknown or mixed origins, one has to make allowances for the appearances of ideas and philosophies that don't quite "gel" either with one's personal beliefs or with the beliefs of Hinduism at its most basic level (in general). I wouldn't let specific puranas trouble you. Although I will commend you(and anyone else) who reads them and becomes familiar with them because you are the ones that are most prepared to counter misconceptions.

:camp:
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
There are many interpolations in Puranas and Smritis. See what they did with Manusmriti and how they use Garuda Purana to get money out of their clients. Mayavada, Advaita, and making every one into Brahman would have dried up their earnings like the river Sarasvati. No Gods, no rituals to please them, no income for the priests. Naturally, they modified Advaita in various ways.
 
Last edited:

Tyaga

Na Asat
Pranam,

Although pre-Christian era texts like Kautilya's Arthashastra,Chandogya Upanishad,Satapatha Brahmana etc contain mention of the Puranas,the current available versions of the Puranas are very late.Some of them might even date to colonial era(such as Bhavishya Purana,which mentions Queen Victoria!)

I'm not saying that the current Puranas doesn't contain anything useful,but we must reject the awkward parts contained in them.
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
There are many interpolations in Puranas and Smritis. See what they did with Manusmriti and how they use Garuda Purana to get money out of their clients.
The garuDapurANam is a strange text; it seems almost devoted entirely to talking of hell or the afterlife. The "kaShThamAShamarIchAni tagaraM madhu pippalI..." part particularly was quite gross.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3654691 said:
I shall post more quotes from other Purana-s later. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the above, ha.
So what? There's also parts in the veda-s that's hard to "wrap your head around," like in the following verses from the vAjasaneyi saMhitA:
tA\'ubha\'u chatu\'raH padaH\' sampra\'sArayAva svarge\'loke\'pro\'rNuvAthAM vR^IShA vAjI\'retodhA\'re\'to dadhAtu||23.20||
u\'tsakthyA a\'va gudaM\' dhehi sa\'ma~njiM\' chArayA vR^iShan| ya\'strINAM\' jIvabho\'janaH||23.21||
Seriously, "vR^IShA vAjI\'retodhA\'re\'to dadhAtu" ("O horse, verile begetter, give semen")? That's creepier than anything you've posted..
 
Last edited:

Maya3

Well-Known Member
They are mythological and allegorical so I wouldn't take them too seriously.

Maya
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |

So what? There's also parts in the veda-s that's hard to "wrap your head around," like in the following verses from the vAjasaneyi saMhitA:
tA\'ubha\'u chatu\'raH padaH\' sampra\'sArayAva svarge\'loke\'pro\'rNuvAthAM vR^IShA vAjI\'retodhA\'re\'to dadhAtu||23.20||
u\'tsakthyA a\'va gudaM\' dhehi sa\'ma~njiM\' chArayA vR^iShan| ya\'strINAM\' jIvabho\'janaH||23.21||
Seriously, "vR^IShA vAjI\'retodhA\'re\'to dadhAtu" ("O horse, verile begetter, give semen")? That's creepier than anything you've posted..

You are more than welcomed to make a thread on concerns you may have about those verses.
 
Last edited:

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
They are mythological and allegorical so I wouldn't take them too seriously.

Maya
Mythological? You sound exactly like Aupamanyav. I don't take all the purANam-s literally, nor do I think that the sun rides on a chariot, that gaNesha literally has an elephant's head, or that the sun revolves around the earth, but I still don't consider everything in the purANam-s to be mythological.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3655107 said:
Aww, is someone a little upset with the thread topic? Aww.
Well, bestiality in the vAjasaneyi saMhitA is creepier than anything in, say, the bhAgavatapurANam. Perhaps we should have an "oddities in the veda-s" or "oddities in the Agama-s" or "oddities of the tantra-s" thread as well. I don't even know why this thread is allowed in the Hindu DIR, especially since you seem to be copying and pasting ISKCON translations with an anti-advaita bias, which pretty much does nothing but flame both advaitin-s and vaiShNava-s. Seriously, this is no different from how some ISKCON members call Adi sha~Nkara a rascal.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Are these translated by Prabhupada? He liked using the word Mayavadi.

I think - but, I could be wrong. Also, awesome to hear from you, Madhuri! I hope you've been well. Pranam-s.

I wouldn't let specific puranas trouble you.

It's not that they trouble me so much, but rather that I still fail to find a few of them as "divine". Wonderful scriptures with great prose? Definitely. But, "divine"? I'm not too sure about that.

There are many interpolations in Puranas and Smritis. See what they did with Manusmriti ...

I was made aware of a very odd interpolation in the Manusmriti: something about not marrying females with red hair.

...talk about weird.

Tyāga;3654879 said:
I'm not saying that the current Puranas doesn't contain anything useful,but we must reject the awkward parts contained in them.

I don't think we should reject the awkward parts, but rather study them more; study their origins or interpolations; why they were made; by whom; etc..

And, I'm sure there are numerous useful messages that can be found in the Purana-s - however, I'm just trying to make sense of stuff that comes off far from being "divine". Instead, it comes off to me as rather polemic...such as the Padma Purana and the constant anti-Shiva and anti-Advaita sentiments found within. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Advaita either...but, still...
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Perhaps we should have an "oddities in the veda-s" or "oddities in the Agama-s" or "oddities of the tantra-s" thread as well.

Who is stopping you?

I don't even know why this thread is allowed in the Hindu DIR, especially since you seem to be copying and pasting ISKCON translations with an anti-advaita bias, which pretty much does nothing but flame both advaitin-s and vaiShNava-s.

This was posted in the HinduDIR because I want to get opinions of non-Vaishnava Hindus on how they feel about such statements found in various Purana-s. But, if the mods want to move it somewhere else after they evaluate...it's fine by me.
 
Last edited:

Sumit

Sanatana Dharma
Puranas were composed when different sects were developed within Hinduism and a large part of it is is result of their mutual conflicts, each sect trying to prove them superior.
 

Tyaga

Na Asat

ike in the following verses from the vAjasaneyi saMhitA:
tA\'ubha\'u chatu\'raH padaH\' sampra\'sArayAva svarge\'loke\'pro\'rNuvAthAM vR^IShA vAjI\'retodhA\'re\'to dadhAtu||23.20||
u\'tsakthyA a\'va gudaM\' dhehi sa\'ma~njiM\' chArayA vR^iShan| ya\'strINAM\' jIvabho\'janaH||23.21||
Seriously, "vR^IShA vAjI\'retodhA\'re\'to dadhAtu" ("O horse, verile begetter, give semen")? That's creepier than anything you've posted..


Pranam,

Isn't this passage from Ashvamedha section?It was a fertility rite,so the chief queen(Mahishi) would have to copulate(or mock it) with the slain horse.That is her role in the sacrifice,for the glory and prosperity of the kingdom.Taittiriya Samhita,however,identifies the 'horse' as representing entire universe.

Also,the sentence "lest us spread our fours feets in the world of heaven"(rough translation by me) in the verse 23.20 IMO refers to the copulation in a mythological manner.
 
Last edited:

NobodyYouKnow

Misanthropist
मैत्रावरुणिः;3655123 said:
Who is stopping you.
NobodyYouKnow. :p

Seriously though, I have already done those topics to death and why post a thread I can actually reply to?

Really seriously now, I only read the Puranas that ascribe to my Faith (Siva Puran, Linga Puran, Skanda Puran, Devi Puran (which I still have to read)...

The Puranas are just stories (like previously mentioned) and I would also take them with a 'grain of salt'. They are not really, literal 'scriptures' and people (like Prabhupada) will put their own spin and interpretations on them.

It's also notable that in many of the Puranas, certain contradictions occur. Whilst not entirely mythical, they can be entirely allegorical.

So, I wouldn't worry about them, but they do provide a nice backdrop to the situation - they describe certain stories with a 'moral' to them.

Really, Really serious now...

Om Namah Shivaya
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
The Puranas are just stories (like previously mentioned) and I would also take them with a 'grain of salt'.

Don't worry, I know. ;)

I just wanted to hear opinions from non-Vaishnava Hindus on various Puranic scriptures.

Or, perhaps, just maybe, it's irrelevant for Shaivas, Shaktas, and other non-Vaishnavas, what various Vaishnava scriptures say? Because, I think most Shaivas, Shaktas, and related others, aren't too bothered by such.
 
Last edited:

Maya3

Well-Known Member
I don't mean any offense with my comments of them being myth.
They can be great stories that can be of great value to explain our surroundings and things that we don't understand.
But they are not meant to be taken as literal. They were written a long time ago before we had access to the scientific knowledge and astronomic knowledge that we have now.
I don't think stories like this would be written today, but that doesn't mean that you cant learn a lot from them.

Maya
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3655118 said:
I was made aware of a very odd interpolation in the Manusmriti: something about not marrying females with red hair.

...talk about weird.
What's stranger is that racism against red-haired people has been present in many societies; in ancient Greece, people believed redheads would become vampires if they died; in Egypt, they were considered so unlucky that many redheads were burnt alive to their god Orisis; in Medieval Europe (not including Celtic regions), redheads are considered Satanic and were often burnt alive for witchcraft, etc.
 

NobodyYouKnow

Misanthropist
मैत्रावरुणिः;3655391 said:
Or, perhaps, just maybe, it's irrelevant for Shaivas, Shaktas, and other non-Vaishnavas, what various Vaishnava scriptures say? Because, I think most Shaivas, Shaktas, and related others, aren't too bothered by such.
Pretty much.

The divisions within Hinduism itself can be much wider than those outside the faith sometimes.

I know I shouldn't think like this, but I put a Vaishnava trying to refute my Shaiva teachings through their Scriptures, in the same basket as a Christian trying to preach to me using The Bible...it is an entirely foreign concept for me.

This is why I never post on 'Vaishnava threads' or even answer a post based on Vaishnavism, because I just 'wouldn't have a clue', just like a lot of Vaishnavas don't have a clue about the path I follow either, other than according to their Guru/Scripture/Whatever it is 'wrong'...but the two words always left out of that is 'for them'....being that a true Vaishnava shouldn't worship Shiva, unless one is a Smarta, and I am still trying to understand all that...how does a Smarta reconcile all of the inconsistencies?

So (speaking as a Shaivite) we see all this and just go...'meh, whatever helps them sleep better at night'.

Om Namah Shivaya
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
See the truth ! Actually Mohashastra and Mayavada refers to those Vaishnawas who see difference between Hari and Shiva . Shiva deludes Vaishnawa by propagating shastras which says that vishnu and shiva are different .

See the proofs from Rudra gita ( Rudra gita is a part of Bhagavata and Varaha Purana .)

Shiva says : " There is no god above Him in the past, present or future. He who is Visnu is Brahma and he who is Brahma is Maheswara, too. "

" Men who are learned in the three Vedas and adept in sacrifices have declared
that he, who draws a distinction among us three, is sinful and wicked, and faces
downfall. "

" He asked them all as to what He might do for them. They then bowed to Him
and said :‘Oh great God! All people have now been liberated. How then will creation proceed and who will go to hell?’ "

" Thus asked by Devas, Lord Janardana told them: ‘During the first three yugas,
most people reach Me. "

" But in the last yuga (Kali), those who attain me will be a few. I then create the
force of stupefaction which deludes people. "

" Oh you Rudra! You produce the Mohasastra (the science of stupefaction). With
a little effort, you produce delusion’. "

" So saying, the great Lord concealed Himself, and I was made very manifest.

" From then onwards people became more interested in the Sastras which I
promulgated.Following the Vedic path, worshipping Lord Narayana and finding unity in all the three gods, people get liberation. "

" Those who consider me as different from Visnu or Brahma are driven to do sinful
deeds and reach hell. "

" It is for the delusion of those who are outside the Vedic fold that I introduced the Sastras called Naya, Siddhanta, etc. "

" He, who knows this and also knows me as Narayana, the lotus-born Brahma
and myself as one made different by the qualities, has right knowledge. We are
essentially One; it is ignorance that produces the sense of difference. "

" Rudra said: Oh learned men! Whatever is offered in the sacrifice for me is shared by all the three of us.

Oh great sages! There is no diversity among us, and discerning people do not
find any such thing.

Thus said by Rudra, Oh king! All the sages asked him about the purpose of
Mohasastra (which deludes people).

"
The sages said: You have produced a separate Sastra to stupefy the world. Be pleased to tell us why you have done this. "

" Rudra said:
10. There is in Bharatavarsa a forest called Dandaka. There a brahmana named
Gautama was performing severe penance.
11. Brahma was very much pleased at this, and he asked the ascetic to seek a boon
for him.

12. Thus asked by Brahma, the creator of the worlds, Gautama requested, ‘Give me
abundance of crops and grain’. And Brahma granted it.

13-14. Getting this boon, the ascetic built a large hermitage at Satasrnga, and there
he used to reap every morning the ripe grain and cook it at noon and offer
sumptuous food to brahmanas.

15. He was doing this for a long time. Once a severe drought occurred which lasted
twelve years.

16. Distressed at this drought and very much famished, all the sages in the forest
went to Gautama.
Seeing them all in his hermitage, Gautama bowed to them and asked them to
stay there.

18. They remained there eating a variety of food till the drought was over.

19. Then those sages felt a desire to undertake a pilgrimage.

20. Knowing this, a great sage Marica spoke to the sage Sandilya.


Marica said:
21. ‘Oh Sandilya! Sage Gautama is like our father. Without telling him, we should
not leave this place, for penance (elsewhere)’.
22. When told thus, the sages laughed and said, ‘Have we sold ourselves to him by
taking his food’?

23. Again they discussed of leaving the place and decided to do so. They also
created a magical cow and left it at the hermitage.

24. Seeing that cow wandering in the hermitage, Gautama took some water in his
hand and splashed it on its body.

25. Then that magical cow fell down like a drop of water.

26. Seeing it thus hurt, he turned to the sages starting to leave and asked them with
reverence:

27. ‘Oh brahmanas! Please tell me why you are going to leave me, your devotee’.


The sages said:
28.
‘Oh sage! So long as the sin of killing the cow remains in you, we shall not eat
your food’.
29. Told thus, Gautama, who knew what was righteous, asked them to tell him what
the atonement was for the sin of having killed the cow.


The sages said:
30. ‘This cow is not dead but has only become unconscious. Bathed in the water of
Ganga, it will doubtless rise up.
31. The atonement is only with regard to one that is killed. For this sin, only penance
may be performed. Please do not be angry’. So saying they all left.

32. When they were gone, Gautama went to the great mountain Himalaya to perform severe penance.


33. For one hundred and one years I was worshipped, and, being pleased by that, I
asked him to seek a boon.

34. He sought that the river Ganga in my matted hair be made to follow him.

35. I then let off the river from one part of my head and Gautama let it to the place
where the cow was lying.

36. Washed by that water the cow rose up, and the river became great with holy
water, and passing through sacred places.

37. Seeing that great wonder, the seven sages came there in aerial cars saying
‘Well done, well done.

38. Blessed are you, oh Gautama! Who is there equal to you in that you have
brought this Ganga to this Dandaka forest?’

39. Then Gautama wondered as to how he had become the cause of hurting the
animal.

40. He realized that it was all the result of the magic adopted by the sages (who had
lived in his hermitage), and cursed them who were sages only in appearance.

41. ‘You will all be outside the three Vedas and ineligible to perform Vedic rites’.

42. Hearing the curse of Gautama thus pronounced on those sages, the seven
sages told him, ‘although your words will have due effect, you should not mean it for
all time.

43. In the Kali age, let the brahmanas become such as to be ungrateful to those who
do them good.

44. Burnt by the fire of your curse, let them, in the Kali age, become devotees of the
Lord.

45. Let them be outside the fold of Vedic rites. Let this river also have the second
name as Godavari.

46. In Kaliyuga, those, who come to this river and give gifts of cows and other
materials according to their capacity, will delight themselves with the gods.

47-48. If, at the time when Jupiter is in Leo, one takes bath there and propitiates the manes according to the scriptures, they (the manes) will go to heaven even if they have fallen in hell, and those who are already in heaven will attain liberation.

49. You will attain great fame, and gain eternal liberation’.

50. Then the seven sages came to Kailasa where I was with Parvati, and told me:

51. ‘In the Kali age, many will have your form with crown of matted hair, assuming
ghostly forms and wearing lingas.

52. For their sake, give a Sastra to redeem them from the influence of Kali’.

53. Requested by them thus, I produced a Samhita which contained rules for Vedic
rites as well.

54. This Samhita is named Nissvasa; and Babhravya and Sandila are absorbed in it.

55. Deluded by me, people, out of selfish motives, will promulgate their own Sastras
in Kaliyuga.

56. The Nissavasasamhita with a lakh of verses alone is authoritative, and that gives
the discipline regarding Pasupata.

57. This follows the path of the Veda, and whatever is outside its scope should be
considered as impure.

58. The Vedantins in Kaliyuga resort to Rudra. Fickle-minded people frame their
own Sastras, but I do not remain with them.

59-60. In yore, I assumed the fierce Bhairava form for the sake of the gods and for
the annihilation of the wicked demons, and laughed terribly.

61. Out of my tears, which fell then on the earth, raised innumerable terrible beings.

62. They were fond of flesh, wine and physical pleasure, and were out to create
terror in the world.

63. The brahmanas cursed by Gautama will be born in their clan. Among them,
those, who follow the rules I have laid down and are of good conduct, will attain
heaven and get liberation.

64. Those, who doubt the doctrine I have laid down, ridicule my followers and go to hell.

65. Formerly burnt by the curse of Gautama and now by my words, they go to hell
and we need not doubt this.

Varaha said:
1. Agastya asked the omniscient Rudra,
‘Who is the most ancient one and the
creator of everything?’

Agastya said:
2. You, Brahma and Visnu constitute the Trio and the three Vedas. Like the flame of
the lamp, you illumine everything and permeate all Sastras.
3. Oh God! Tell me at which time you are Rudra, at which time Brahma and at which
time Visnu.


Rudra said:
4. Visnu is the Supreme Brahman in Veda and Sastras. He is spoken of as having
three forms. But this is not known to the ignorant.
5. From the root vis meaning ‘to enter’, with the nominative singular suffix we get the word ‘Visnu’. He is the eternal and the supreme among all gods.

6. This Visnu who is spoken of as having a ten-fold form as well as of a single form
is the Aditya with all yogic powers. The great God, for the sake of Devas, assumes human form in every yuga and praises me.

" The Supreme Brahman is enshrined in the names Narayana, Siva, Visnu,
Sankara and Purusottama. "

" I am Visnu as well as Brahma with the eternal Veda. The three gods are really
one, and wise men should not consider them as different. "

" He who considers otherwise is a sinner and he goes to the terrible hell. "

" I am Brahma and Visnu, and the Veda - Rig, Yajur and Sama. The difference is
only in name. "



 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
Hinduism♥Krishna;3655664 said:
See the truth ! Actually Mohashastra and Mayavada refers to those Vaishnawas who see difference between Hari and Shiva . Shiva deludes Vaishnawa by propagating shastras which says that vishnu and shiva are different.
praNAma and suprabhAtam HLK,
This is one time you have been the most reasonable person on the thread, wow! I'm glad you pointed out the rudragItA (BTW, the padmapurANam also has a shivagItA which praises shiva, probably moreso than the rudragItA and ribhugItA combined, lol) and I'm surprised that no one else other than you and I noticed that although the ISKCON translations are clearly biased with views which support their own sampradAya/paramparA or attack that of advaitin-s, the original text provided does not speak ill of advaita, lets examine the verses from the ShaTtriMshadadhikadvishatatamodhyAyaH from the uttarakhaNDam of the padmapurANam:

mAyAvAdamasachChAstraMprachChannaMbauddhamuchyate|
mayaivakathitaMdevikalaubrAhmaNarUpinA||3.2236.7||
apArthaMshrutivAkyAnAMdarshayanlokagarhitaM|
svakarmarUpaMatyAjyatvamatraivapratipAdyate||3.236.8||
sarvakarmaparibhreShTairvaidharmatvaMtaduchyate|
pareshajIvapAraikyaMmayAtupratipAdyate||3.236.9||
brahmaNosyasvayaMrUpaMnirguNaMvakShyate mayA|
sarvasyajagato'pyatramohanArthaMkalauyuge||3.236.10||

I don't see anything there that refers to kevalAdvaita or Adisha~Nkara, the translations given by ISKCON assume that the brAhmaNarUpam which rudra takes is that of sha~Nkara and that mAyAvAdam refers to advaitavedAnta; this is because they belong to the gauDiyavaiShNavasampradAya, and the former was an assumption made by padmanAbhatIrtha (and the gauDiyasampradAya is deeply connected to mAdhva-s) whereas the latter assumption (that mAyAvAdam refers to advaita) was made by the authors of the chaitanyacharitAmR^ita. Neither of these assumptions are likely true in the context of this purANam as the concept of advaitavedAnta didn't even exist during the time of vyAsa. In regards to the verses about shiva, it funny how maitrAvaruNiH took it out of context; the actual verses are referring to those shaiva-s (people with bhasma tilak) who carry around skulls, like kapAlika-s and aghorI-s (and are hence adhArmika) as pAShaNDI-s (that's why it says kapAlabhasmAsthidharAyehyavaidikali~NganaH). This is not referring to sA~Nkhya shaiva-s,siddhAntin-s, ja~Ngama-s/vIrashaivas, etc. It's also ridiculous that maitrAvaruNiH was trying to make it seem as if the same text in which shiva himself says the worlds/universe is born and emanates from him, just like how light is released from sun-like spheres (na dR^iShyate punaH pAkAtkuta prAtaHprAtaryathA'loko jAyate sUryamaNDalAt, see the vishvarUpadarshana adhyAyaH from the shivagItA in the pAtAla khaNDam) would also call people who praise shiva pAShaNDI-s. MaitrAvaruNiH completely ignored the context; therefore, in my opinion, he must have had some alterior motive.

All using these biased ISKCON translations (probably copy-pasted from sites like nitaaiveda.com) does is:

1) Either cause people to reject the purANam-s, or

2) Cause unnecessary disagreement among members of different sects.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3655118 said:
It's not that they trouble me so much, but rather that I still fail to find a few of them as "divine". Wonderful scriptures with great prose? Definitely. But, "divine"? I'm not too sure about that.
So you're a nAstika? Okay...
मैत्रावरुणिः;3655118 said:
And, I'm sure there are numerous useful messages that can be found in the Purana-s - however, I'm just trying to make sense of stuff that comes off far from being "divine". Instead, it comes off to me as rather polemic...such as the Padma Purana and the constant anti-Shiva and anti-Advaita sentiments found within. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Advaita either...but, still...
You seem to read into the text that which you like. Perhaps subconsciously you agree with the ISKCONites and this is why you are making it seem as if the purANam has an anti-shaiva bias, lol.
 
Last edited:
Top