maha puranas

[Guest guest]

is it true or if not proved true, is it not possible, that the puranas were written based on the philosophy of differne4t schools of thought and that may be the reason why there is differences in them. for example, the bhagavad purana, a vishnu purna, gives a different account of the narasimha avatar than the kurma purana, a siva purana. if the shaivites wrote one and the vaishnavs wrote another, wouldnt they change it up a little bit so their sects were still getting their just due.

 

can anyone elaborate on the differnet philosophical schools of thought in ancient india and why it is not so important today

[Guest guest]

<< for example, the bhagavad purana, a vishnu purna, gives a different account of the narasimha avatar than the kurma purana, a siva purana. >>

 

please give specific quotes so that the readers can see the differences, if any, and verify that the quotes do exist in the puranas.

 

besides, the word "mahapuranas" is an oxymoron.

purunas are several, but mahapurana is one.

else it cannot be called mahapurana.

 

jai sri krishna! - madhav

 

 

[Guest guest]

unforuintaely, i dont know any websites that have specific accounts of the puranas. i only ask this because i read the two books. i did not read the real thing, but a little revised book i picked up from the temple.

 

i can try to give an example -

 

in BP, the story of narasimha avatar is the same that i have heard since i was young. an demon ruled and god a boon from brahma that he cannot be killed in many specific circumstances. he got so full of himself that he wanted people to worship him instead of traditional gods. his son prahlad though, was a staunch vaishnav and devoted to vishnu. he refused to worship anyone else and was put through alot of hardships only to be saved by the grace of vishnu (such as sitting in fire and so on) eventually when confronted by his father, prahalad prayed and narasimha came out of a pillar that the demon struck and killed him.

 

in KP, the demon was also oppressing people and vishnu went to fight him. the demon's four sons, of which prahlad was one, fought vishnu but could not beat him. eventually, prahalad changed ways and prayed to vishnu.

 

unfortunately, i do not remember the full account from the kurma purana. i do know for a fact that they said prahlad fought vishnu for a while before changing.

 

also what comes into account is an article i read that said that that specific situation was philosophically in terms of the vaishnavs defeating the shaivites (maybe not physically but philosophically). prahalad's father (whose name escapes me) was a knwn shaivite. perhaps prahlad grew up a shaivite before changing to vaishnav. this could explain the account of the kurma purana (a shiva purana) giving a shaivite account of events.

 

is it possible that the shiva puranas were written by shaivites on shaivite thinking and the vishnu puranas were written by vaishnav thinkers on vaishnav philosophy???

 

my question originally was that

[Guest guest]

"i do know for a fact that they said prahlad fought vishnu for a while before changing."

•••there's anything like that in kurma purana

 

an article i read that said that that specific situation was philosophically in terms of the vaishnavs defeating the shaivites

•••it is a big speculation, this is like to say that the stories of the vedic scriptures are not true , but allegoric legends to explain some philosophical concept

 

prahalad's father (whose name escapes me) was a knwn shaivite.

•••prahlad's father was hiranya kashipu

 

is it possible that the shiva puranas were written by shaivites on shaivite thinking and the vishnu puranas were written by vaishnav thinkers on vaishnav philosophy???

•••there's not any serious scholar or spiritual master who thinks like that... puranas were written by sri vyasa deva with the purpose to show us the spiritual world