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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>