[Advaita-l] Do 'Tamasa' Puranas enjoin practice of Adharma?

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Subbu ji
Yes. I understand the difficulty in reconciliation with such Padma purANa
type of verses.

I do appreciate your meticulous study of purANa verses embodying Advaita. I
understand this is necessary to counter the free run that sectarian
dvaitins have tended to have of such other texts.

At first glance it might seem too straightforward that sectarian
interpretation of purANas and other texts is so utterly flawed.

 But it's also important to make the necessary efforts to collect and
highlight the large numbers of verses of advaitic teaching spread across
the entire corpus of purANas which is what you have been doing and thank
you for these efforts.


Om
Raghav



On Thu, 11 May, 2023, 9:27 am V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Raghav ji,
>
> Regarding the options you give at the end, I had heard from Sri Mani
> Dravid Sastrigal that the late Sri Ananthakrishna Sastrigal had given an
> Advaita-friendly interpretation to those 'mayavadam' verses.  I have not
> seen that, though. I can ask him for the source of that interpretation and
> read it. I am not sure if that is very convincing.
>
> I think in the present situation we can have the stand that no one can map
> those verses to Advaita as clearly the content of the verses is both a
> misrepresentation of Advaita and also a glaring contradiction of what Veda
> Vyasa has taught in his various works including the Bhagavatam, Vishnu
> Puranam, etc.  Over the years it has been my passion to fish out the
> jiva-brahma aikya, prapancha mithya, nirguna Brahman/Jiva specific explicit
> verses from the Puranas and put them in public domain.  There is a huge
> corpus of this.  I have been posting them in our groups too. Additionally
> the Hari-Hara  / Trimurti abheda verses, panchayatana type verses also form
> part of my 'research'.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 6:54 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Subbu ji
>> Thank you for the link. I carefully read the thread you had posted in the
>> other groups. It was quite comprehensive and clear.
>>
>>  Sattvika purANas also abound in verses extolling Advaita, expounding
>> mAyA and the natural progression towards karna-tyAga.
>>
>> These verses from Padma purANa are in direct contradiction to much other
>> matter ascribed to veda vyAsa and Sri Krishna.
>>
>> What do we make of these Padma purANa type verses in that case?
>> 1. They are later extrapolations and hence to be discarded outright
>> 2. Alternative interpretation possible to retain them in the Padma purANa
>> 3. Their status is unclear or undecipherable
>>
>>  Which of the above or any other option be tenable?
>>
>> Om
>> Raghav
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 10 May, 2023, 9:21 am V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Raghav ji,
>>>
>>> Here is a very lengthy post that exposes the unreliability of those
>>> alleged verses of the Padma Purana that you have cited:
>>>
>>> Pl. read the full post here:
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/oksKnLD1Rio
>>>
>>> Please read all the three posts on the above link.  It is a very
>>> detailed refutation of the Padma Purana verses supposedly denigrating
>>> Advaita. All those non-Advaitins who have cited them to fault Advaita have
>>> unknowingly faulted Veda Vyasa and the Vedanta Shastra.  It is worth taking
>>> the time to read the above fully so as to be armed with replies whenever
>>> someone brings up those Padma Purana verses.
>>>
>>> warm regards
>>> subbu
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 7:26 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
>>> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> .Namaste Subbu ji
>>>> The Padma purANa itself reads like a sectarian text in many parts esp.
>>>> with the following lines in the Uttarakhand (chapter 236 verses 8 onwards).
>>>> Possibly heavy interpolations.  It conveniently lists itself in a
>>>> self-referential way as a sattvika purANa.
>>>>
>>>> Also the use of the word "i myself as a brahmana "proclaimed" it in
>>>> Kali (age)" is mysterious. Does the sanskrit original also use the past
>>>> tense?  indicating that these verses are of recent origin.
>>>>
>>>> " The doctrine of Maya (illusion)
>>>> is a wicked doctrine and said to be pseudo-Buddhist. I myself,
>>>> of the form of a brahmana, proclaimed it in Kali (age). It shows the
>>>> meaninglessness of the words of the holy texts and is condemned in the
>>>> world. In this (doctrine) only the  giving up of one's own duties is
>>>> expounded. And that is said to  be religiousness by those who have fallen
>>>> from all duties. I have  propounded the identity of the Highest Lord and
>>>> the (individual) soul. I stated this Brahman's nature to be qualityless. O
>>>> goddess, I myself have conceived, for the destruction of the
>>>> worlds, and for deluding the world in this Kali age, the great doctrine
>>>> resembling the purport of the Vedas, (but) non-Vedic
>>>> due to the principle of Maya (illusion) (present in it). By my order
>>>> formerly Jaimini propounded the great doctrine of Poorva
>>>> Mimaihsa, stating godlessness and making the Veda meaningless.
>>>> 1 3-17. 0 Girija, know from me the vicious doctrines. I
>>>> shall also narrate the names of the vicious Puranas* in success-
>>>> ion : Brahma, Padma, Vaivarta, Saiva, so also Bhaagavata. So
>>>> also Naradiya and Markandeya as the seventh. Agneya is said
>>>> to be the eighth, and BhaviShya to be the ninth. Brahmavaivarta
>>>> is said to be the tenth, and Linga to be eleventh. Varaha is said
>>>> to be the twelfth and Vamana the thirteenth. Kurma is said to
>>>> be the fourteenth and Matsya the fifteenth. Garuda is said to be
>>>> the sixteenth, and Skanda to be the seventeenth. The eighteenth
>>>> is Brahmaanda (These are) the Puranas.as in succession.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>