e.g. Ramanuja has said that any Puranic content that disagrees with Vishnu purana is Tamasic. Ramanuja's criterion would make the widespread Narasimha story Tamasic since it occurs only in a rudimentary way in the Vishnu Purana.

But modern scholars regard this classification as invalid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puranas "Scholars consider the Sattva-Rajas-Tamas classification as "entirely fanciful" and there is nothing in each text that actually justifies this classification." [40] Ludo Rocher (1986), The Puranas, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, ISBN 978-3447025225,

Is such classification worth considering?

  • Possible duplicate of What is the purpose of tamasic purana if it leads to hell? – The Destroyer Nov 26 '17 at 17:09
  • although this forum bears the incredibly geeky title of a "stack exchange" the powers that be need to keep it human. – S K Nov 26 '17 at 20:01
  • @SK I'm piqued, who are these so called "modern" scholars. – DirghaChintayanti Nov 26 '17 at 21:14
  • 1
    This is not the correct place for this. If you want to discuss come to chatroom – DirghaChintayanti Nov 26 '17 at 21:23
  • 3
    "Is it geniune? Yes, it's genuine because it's present in scriptures." Is it interpolation? Maybe but there is no way to know it [Modern scholarship: Not taken by all.] Which Puranas are Tamasic? As per Vaishnavas Shiva Puranas are Tamasic (see Agama Pramanya of Yamunacharya); as per some strict Shaivas Vishnu Puranas are Tamasic (see Srikara bhasya on section which deals with refutation of Pancharatra), Is it worth considering? Depends on you, . .. for eg. As per Adi Shankara who differentiate between Hari and Hara are Mudha (fools), Kutarki (generate illogical logic), Duratman (wicked)... – Tejaswee Nov 28 '17 at 7:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .