Views of the Puranas

[ratikala]

May I ask why some refuse to take scripture literally? Is it because you don't want to appear fundamentalist?

Or afraid of science proving you wrong, or would hate to appear irrational or illogical to some folks, or super traditional?

I beleive science will prove it self wrong and as it does much more of what we beleive to be mythology will be revealed to be fact

 

[Philomath]

May I ask why some refuse to take scripture literally? Is it because you don't want to appear fundamentalist? Or afraid of science proving you wrong, or would hate to appear irrational or illogical to some folks, or super traditional?

It's not that I don't want to appear as a fundamentalist. I just don't believe these are literal stories.

 

[KrsnaDasa]

I beleive science will prove it self wrong and as it does much more of what we beleive to be mythology will be revealed to be fact

:bow:

It's not that I don't want to appear as a fundamentalist. I just don't believe these are literal stories.

May i ask why though? I'm not trying to pick and prod at you, just trying to understand the reasoning. I'm under the impression that most people viewed their scriptures as fully real and literal until scientific theory became popular and it become more acceptable and "rational" to view scientific THEORY as more of a logical way of describing our universe and such. When really, again, they are all mostly theories and they have barely proved anything besides that there are atoms and matter (anu and prakriti, already spoken about in the scriptures), only they have gone somewhat more indepth.

Edit- say, Philomath, that part of what Ratikala became evident. That as science progressed it just found that it was simply doing empty speculations and they came to the conclusion that the farther they went, the more they had to accept they barely know anything, and they began to disprove their own theories. Would this change you view on such matters?

 

[Philomath]

:bow:
May i ask why though? I'm not trying to pick and prod at you, just trying to understand the reasoning. I'm under the impression that most people viewed their scriptures as fully real and literal until scientific theory became popular and it become more acceptable and "rational" to view scientific THEORY as more of a logical way of describing our universe and such. When really, again, they are all mostly theories and they have barely proved anything besides that there are atoms and matter (anu and prakriti, already spoken about in the scriptures), only they have gone somewhat more indepth.

Edit- say, Philomath, that part of what Ratikala became evident. That as science progressed it just found that it was simply doing empty speculations and they came to the conclusion that the farther they went, the more they had to accept they barely know anything, and they began to disprove their own theories. Would this change you view on such matters?

I'm not really sure what exactly your saying. Are you saying science disproved itself?

 

[Vinayaka]

I would like to see a poll on this, but I don't know how to set one up. I'd be interested to know what percentage of devotees view the Puranas as literal, allegorical, or a combination of both. Maybe there are other options as well.

 

[KrsnaDasa]

I'm not really sure what exactly your saying. Are you saying science disproved itself?

No, sorry. The message got lost in all those words. What I mean to say is, if one day we find out that the scientific methods are incorrect, or that these scientific speculations are pointless and only manufacturing a field of theories instead of actual proofs, would you change how you viewed the Puranas? I'm basically just trying to see if you view the Puranas the way you do because of a reliance on science or other reasons. I'm not trying to change your mind! Haha, I respect your view, just trying to understand the reasoning.

 

[KrsnaDasa]

I would like to see a poll on this, but I don't know how to set one up. I'd be interested to know what percentage of devotees view the Puranas as literal, allegorical, or a combination of both. Maybe there are other options as well.

Done! Took me awhile to locate it, the option was under the thread tools.

 

[Philomath]

No, sorry. The message got lost in all those words. What I mean to say is, if one day we find out that the scientific methods are incorrect, or that these scientific speculations are pointless and only manufacturing a field of theories instead of actual proofs, would you change how you viewed the Puranas? I'm basically just trying to see if you view the Puranas the way you do because of a reliance on science or other reasons. I'm not trying to change your mind! Haha, I respect your view, just trying to understand the reasoning.

I can't ever see a scenario like that occurring because if our scientific methods are wrong then nothing of ours should work lol.

 

[Philomath]

Aren't Allegorical and Mythological similar things?

 

[Vinayaka]

Done! Took me awhile to locate it, the option was under the thread tools.

Thank you.

As we learned here previously though, RF is a very poor sampling of Hinduism, as it's very skewed towards westerners and converts, so it follows logically that any poll will be skewed accordingly.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/138772-hindu-ethnicity-poll.html

 

[KrsnaDasa]

Aren't Allegorical and Mythological similar things?

Similar, but not the same.

 

[KrsnaDasa]

I can't ever see a scenario like that occurring because if our scientific methods are wrong then nothing of ours should work lol.

Okay, so you believe that the Puranas are rooted in the human intellect, instead of God?

 

[Philomath]

Okay, so you believe that the Puranas are rooted in the human intellect, instead of God?

Weren't we talking about science?

 

[KrsnaDasa]

Thank you.

As we learned here previously though, RF is a very poor sampling of Hinduism, as it's very skewed towards westerners and converts, so it follows logically that any poll will be skewed accordingly.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/138772-hindu-ethnicity-poll.html

Indeed, thank you for that notice. We converts are Hindus though! though quite different from those born into it. Haha

 

[KrsnaDasa]

Weren't we talking about science?

Ahh, I misinterpreted what you said in your previous post. My apologies.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

To me, it is sort of like looking at a book that describes a master cook who is in the process of narrating and demonstrating a recipe for fruit salad. You could have a video for that, but then it might be a book where a narration is made of the glory and events of this or that Devas or Devi, but you then consider "why would someone share this with others?"...

So the question is, why? Is there a purpose behind it?

I think there is a purpose.

As far as whether it actually was literal, I guess you can ask if a particular fruit salad is literal or a creation in time for some purpose or taste, and not all fruit salads are the same.

The Devas and Devi are not designated only to the past, they are doing things right now, too. So will there be future Puranas?

I believe so. However, they may be in video format and not a book. Stay tuned.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Jainarayan]

Primarily allegorical and metaphorical; moral tales. Perhaps based in some obscure historical event that initiated and propagated the morality tales.

 

[Poeticus]

If we take the PurANas as being allegorical tales, then it may be asked here: who wrote them?

I wrote them after chillin' with some females in Madurai.

Before start answering this question, we will do well to notice one important fact that the Vedic Deities are no more considered as Gods in the PurANas. What were the Vedic Deities once became mere names, of many JivAs (enlightened/ exalted/ ignorant souls), and thus dissolved into insignificance. SavitR, BrahmaNaspati, Aditi, Sudhanvan, Indra--- all these transformed into just words, or at best were conserved through attaching some harmless connotation (Aditi thus denoting the name of the wife of certain Rsi), or worse still, by making a formal mockery of the words (Indra, "the corrupt demigod", being a case-in-point, or even Daksha).

I, and neither the Shri Vedic Gods, forgive for such a corruption. It seems that they have discarded their protection.

That their coming into existence is pre or post Vedic is arguable, but what can be said with some certainty is that the PurANas were not originally the creations of priests or elites, as they were more engaged with the "high brow" theories of "Brahman", "Moksha", "NirvANa", "bhedAbheda", "chintyAchintya", and so on. On one hand these elites were unable to come to terms with the Veda, on the other they felt threatened by the seeming chaos of Hinduism that was practiced on ground- a riot of innumerable PurANic Gods and Goddesses.

It was because of self-appropriation. Many of these add-ons were in response to the vast multitude of Gods in their expanse. On one hand, they had to respond to the monotheistic, invading Persians, then on the other hand, they had to (years down the line) respond to the fools persuaded by Thomas' Patrons, and then the ultimate redaction started to occur around 700CE with the Muslim influence.

Manish: Oy, Sunil! Bring me a few copies of those manuscripts!
Sunil: Why boss?
Manish: Because, we have to make it look like we are monotheist so we may not get killed.
Sunil: But, why do we have to be cowards? Why can't we be like the societies of the Rig Veda where those guys didn't take crap from anyone?
Manish: .....
Manish: (ignoring the question) I don't want to get killed, so let's alter a few Vedas and a few manuscripts here and there so we can fit in.
Sunil: .....

Veda was a secular religion, it will come back to the centre stage in a future, no doubt about that also. In the meantime, I dare say, PurANas became the Veda de facto. And they were created by "common folks". They were the Rsis of the Kaliyuga, the illiterate ones who went around places singing the songs of various Deities.

I wonder what Rishi Grtsamada, Rishi Vishwamitra, and Rishi Vasishtha would have said if they compared the Samhitas with the Epics - and even with the Puranas. I doubt what they say will be good.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

I wrote them after chillin' with some females in Madurai.

Not sure about Madurai, they might just have used the "madhu" (mariju***). (btw, do you know someone from there?)

I wonder what Rishi Grtsamada, Rishi Vishwamitra, and Rishi Vasishtha would have said if they compared the Samhitas with the Epics - and even with the Puranas. I doubt what they say will be good.

Well, you can safely leave the "doubt" part to me, as you sound not in doubt here at all.

I am just a tad old, I guess, and am susceptible to confusion and laziness. But sure will follow the lead of younger ones like yourself who become the thought leaders by making full (not half, like me:areyoucra) use of Vedic wisdom, and slay the Asat, or Ignorance (to borrow from Ratikala ji).

 

[Poeticus]

Not sure about Madurai, they might just have used the "madhu" (mariju***). (btw, do you know someone from there?)[

Yeah, boss. A few ladies from 'da South of India attend my college. They are gorgeous. If I don't find a female from my Samāj (Karadva tribe), I will only marry a female from the South. It is what the Shri Gods have decreed! Muahahahaha! Jai Mādavi!!!