Talk:Puranas/Archive 1

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 (&#5839;) 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 Copyrights.

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. GizzaChat  &#169; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reference cleanup
I took the liberty of adjusting the Notes and References sections to fit the standard approach at Guide to layout. In that arrangement, books that are actually cited in Notes wind up in the "list of works cited" which is called References. This arrangement simplifies Citing sources by making the books accessible via short footnotes such as "Doe (1921), p. 384." Assuming this is OK, I will go through the footnotes and try to clean them up to comply with that format, but of course others are welcome to do it as well. Buddhipriya 04:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Klostermaier and Sharma citation
In this edit, I removed the citation to "Klaus Klostermaier 1989 and Arvind Sharma 1995." It is too cryptic to be able to verify and its insertion here is equally bizarre. Without any way of knowing exactly what Klostermaier and Sharma pieces are being talked about, it's not clear enough to use here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Article used in Wikibook: Hinduism
I've taken this article and adapted it for the Wikibook on Hinduism under the Indian religion heading. If you are an editor of this article, please feel free to go to Wikibooks and add whatever you wish to the book on Hinduism.

Thanks --Sluffs (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What is Krista Purana doing here (in See also)
This is a hinduism page. Why should we have to mention Kristo Purana here. I am sure other people also must have pointed it out. Aupmanyav (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What is Krista Purana doing here (in See also)
This is a hinduism page. Why should we have to mention Kristo Purana here. I am sure other people also must have pointed it out. Aupmanyav (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a "hinduism" page, it's an encyclopaedia page. Redheylin (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Genus of cicadas (insects) called Purana
There is a genus of insects, cicadas, called Purana. Would it be possible to create a page for this genus and could someone maybe please tell me how to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KalahariFrog (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Puranas → Purana – Purana is the actual name, without the English plural 's', as seen in numerous works. . This English plural form can remain in the article when dealing with the collective. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) Imc (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - My understanding is that the article is about the collective, and from what I saw in the article and searching online, Puranas is the WP:COMMONNAME used by English language reliable sources to describe the subject. - SudoGhost 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Purana is the general term about any single work; e.g. Bhagavata Purana. An article about a collection whose members are generally dealt with individually should be named by the singular term. e.g. the article metal is about all metals, but is nevertheless named singularly. Imc (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Collection of texts. Plural is needed. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The collection is of somewhat disparate texts, where the prime reason for their collection under this name is that they are also (believed to be) ancient. Imc (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support See Naming conventions (plurals) "Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors) or is among the exceptions listed". In this case Google Books search for "a purana" gets 16,600 results and of course the plural gets 650,000, but that's not the point. Purana isn't inherently a collective term. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is Matsya Purana ever suspected not to belong to Maha-Puranas?
Hello, I'm investigating the Puranas for information about events in prehistory. In this context I found wsome very interesting differences in the information as well as the form of the Matsya Purana to all other puranas I know. So my question: was this Purana any time suspected not to belong to the Maha-Puranas?--217.13.79.226 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dionysos of the Geeks is never Shiva POI
Dionysos of the greeks is never Shiva, apart from the fact that there are different people at different times called Dionysos by the greeks. Non of them can match Shiva because their lifetime differs. I think this is just the point of view of the writer. If there is any scientific source for that statement, refer to it, otherwise delete the sentence.--217.13.79.226 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Euro-centric perspective
This article is from a totally Euro-centric perspective. The only Indians were academic "sepoys" in the service of the colonial regime. What is missing is the viewpoint of those who read and studied these books. What were the views of Madhvacarya, Ramanuja, Caitanya, or Jiva Goswami, etc? Jiva in his Tattva Sandarba give Puranas very high standing as pramana, especially Bhagavat Purana. What we have now is sort of like getting a Marxist analysis of the Koran with no input from a Muslim theologian. Time to de-colonize this subject 106.51.19.129 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Purana versus Mythology
It would be interesting and useful if someone could do some research into the reasons why the Christian missionaries and Orientalists called the Vedic literature "mythology." They did it to undermine and deprecate the basis of Vedic culture in order to convert people to Christianity. Authentic Vedic literature (Sruti and smriti) is not mythology but of the highest epistemic value. Using the pejorative terms "mythology," "myths,' and "legends" is simply a display of Euro-centric cultural chauvanism. Please remove all such terms.The British left 70 years ago time to de-colonize the Indian mind.106.51.19.129 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is formatted this way in an attempt to be balanced. You can find plentiful references to the 'Jesus myth', the 'flood myth', and all varieties of Western tradition referred to as mythology on this encyclopedia. You might find it useful to explore what mythology means specifically in this context or how it is discussed in academia. An excellent place to start might be Joseph Campbell. If your intent is to have all the Puranas described as strictly factual accounts you will be very disappointed: that is not the voice or perspective taken by a non-denominational encyclopedia. There are already wikis written for devotees and by devotees and that is not a role that wikipedia is here to fill. You will not find the wikipedian 'thought-police' on ISKCON websites. But for some reason devotees like to come here and play thought-police with us.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts to unsourced version
@Orientls: I have reverted your February edit which restored a lot of poorly sourced and unsourced content with tags (e.g. citation needed request since August 2011). If you have concerns, let us discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Rajesh Kocchar source
Onkuchia added a Kocchar source published by Sangam Books, titled Vedic People: Their History and Geography. The book, amongst other things, presents his view that "a major part of the Rgveda was composed in south Afghanistan (after ~1700 BCE) before the Rgvedic people entered the Punjab plain". This is an unusual book, off from mainstream scholarship, and I could not find the evidence of a peer-review. FWIW, Kocchar has posted his biodata on his namesake website, which I am unable to verify and cross-check. I have left the Kocchar-sourced content in for now, but should the Kocchar source be retained in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Kochhar, along with his sometime collaborator Jayant Narlikar, is a respected astrophysicist and more-notably a science/rationality popularizer in the vein of Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson etc. When writing about Vedic origins etc, he is working outside his central area of expertise, and given the lack of academic reviews or citations by subsequent works in the field (I searched for both but didn't find any) his theory of where/when Rgveda was composed should not be cited per WP:REDFLAG. Aside: I would genuinely be interested in whether he himself represents his theories as a speculative hypotheses or not, because while he may be wrong, I wouldn't expect him to be a supporter of pseudoscience/pseudohistory.
 * Ok back on topic. The Rigvedic theories aside, in the edit under consideration, Kochhar is cited to support the claim that "Chandogya Upanisad (7.1 and 7.7) and early Buddhist texts (Sutta Nipata 3.7) call Purana the fifth Veda". The reference to CU is sloppy (the Chanogya Upanishad talks about itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ, which Puranic texts written several centuries later adopt to accord Vedic authority to themselves; it's not true that CU calls Purana(s), with a capital 'P', the fifth Veda; see more precisely worded description at Fifth Veda), while the reference to SN is disputed. I would suggest rewording the first bit and leaving out the second unless stronger references by area-experts are found. Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will give Onkuchia a day or two to respond, and then act on the Kocchar source. That the CU mentions the word itihasapuranam is okay to include in this article though, with clarification. It has been in the article for a while. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "that the CU mentions the word itihasapuranam is okay to include" Of course! It is indeed essential to mention this since it is (partly) how the Puranas (and the epic, fwiw) enahance their canonical authority. The only point I'm making is that the discussion should be properly presented as in "CU says itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ... X and Y Purana refer back to that as attestation of their Vedic bona fides", and not as "CU refers to X and Y Puranas as the fifth vedas". Does that make sense? Abecedare (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. That would better reflect the sources too, since we should imply neither more nor less than what the sources are actually stating. I will take care of this after giving Onkuchia the due opportunity to reply. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about E.J. Rapson and the Cambridge history of Cambridge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkuchia (talk • contribs) Onkuchia (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Edward Rapson source was published in 1935 and is a dated source. For the same reasons, I have removed the John Dowson-based summary you added because it was published in 1888; also the R.C. Hazra published in 1940. It is inappropriate to dial this or any other wikipedia article to dated colonial era publications. Peer-reviewed scholarship has moved forward. I have recovered all the recently published scholarly sources you deleted for inappropriate reasons. If you have concerns, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to talk about if you have decided to disrupt the improvement of the article against the NPOV. The concern is you are reverting the better content of reliable author's and the corrections I introduced. For instance, you reverted "Brahma Vaivarta is centred on Krishna and Radha and other details" to "seductions of Gods". I'm also aware of your recent activities that deleted some reliable sources.


 * And also how does Hazra suddenly become an unriable source? As far as I know he's been cited by modern scholars in their peer-reviewed works.Onkuchia (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hazra's and other dated publications are unacceptable. Yes, if a more recent peer-reviewed scholarly publication mentions Hazra or some colonial era publication, we can rely on the more recent publication for what they state about Hazra source/views or that colonial/really old publication or writer. The old publications may be used with care in some situations such as, [1] if the section is about the history of scholarship on the subject or topic or term; [2] if no recent peer-reviewed RS on that subject is available; [3] it is a much relied upon dictionary or a translation of a primary source, particularly NONENG sources. What are the NPOV issues that you hint above? please identify the source(s) with their page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

To answer you question regarding sources: Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On Rapson: E. J. Rapson, a non-specialist in Puranic studies, wrote a fine summary chapter that reflected the state of knowledge in the field back in 1922 when his The Cambridge History on India, Vol 1 was originally published. There should be little reason to cite his views now.
 * On R.C. Hazra: Unlike Rapson, Hazra did do original and important work in his PhD thesis on the Puranas, published as Puranic records on Hindu rites and customs in 1940, and his views continue to be quoted by scholars. However, instead of citing Hazra (or, similarly important but dated scholars such as Pargiter, Kane etc) directly, it is better to channel their voices through modern scholarship, which can better contextualize and weigh their opinions.


 * One thing to consider here is that Hazra revised his book in 1975. Onkuchia (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a second edition in 1975, but were there any substantive revisions, updates or expansion? Looking at this 1987 reprint of (what I assume is) the 1975 second edition I see no new preface, and even the pagination matches this 1940 edition. Abecedare (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)