Some scholars think that the Vishnu Puranas are actually tamasic, but what are their arguments for this?
please show citations. All "Tamasic" accusations I am aware of are against Saiva puranas.– S KDec 1, 2017 at 22:11
Could you change to question to remove the 'Shaivites' tag to make the question more generic? An argument from a vaishnava is also valid, if it exists. Is there any specific need for the refutation to come from a shaiva school of thought? The wording of this question incites people to get into sections and argue.– user1952500Dec 1, 2017 at 22:22
@user1952500 While there are Vaishnava schools that don't accept the Pancharatra Agamas (Madhva sampradaya), there are no Vaishnava schools that believe the Vishnu puranas are tamasic.– IkshvakuDec 1, 2017 at 22:26
I agree but the people who don’t know that and are in one of the bandwagons will unnecessarily be affected by the question. If you don’t use the sects, you would likely get an identical answer.– user1952500Dec 1, 2017 at 22:27
@SK According to Tezz's comment in your question here: hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/22366/11726 , some Shaiva scholars think Vishnu puranas are Tamasic– IkshvakuDec 1, 2017 at 22:29
This is based on what Brahmaji said in Rudra Samhita of the Shiva Purana itself which claims to be the greatest of all Puranas. Vishnu is stated as only a demi-god on the same level as Rudra. While Shiva is free from all Gunas. And Vishnu is not only on the same level as Rudra, he is called Tamasic. Also Laxmi is called Tamasic.
Vishnu, Rudra and I (Brahma) represent the Gunas.
Siva is free from Gunas. He is the Supreme Brahman, the undecaying.
Vishnu is of Sattva attribute, I (Brahma) am of Rajas attribute and Rudra is of Tamas attribute. This is only in the view of activities in this world. But in fact in name it is otherwise.
Vishnu is Taamasik nature within
Goddess of speech is Rajasic nature; Sati is of Saattvika nature and Lakshmi is of Taamasika nature; the great Goddess Sivaa is of three natures.
So this naturally means that Vaishnava puranas are glorifying a tamasic demi-god and goddess if we believe this. There is also a major Vaishnava purana (Narada purana) which claims that a Shaiva purana (Linga purana) is the greatest. This is given in Chapter 102:
It indicates the greatness of Hara. It is greater than all the other Puranas. It is the essence of the three worlds.
This and some other points I'm not mentioning here are taken as evidence that Vaishnava puranas actually accept the supremacy of Shiva and are contradicting their own statements so they are proved to be tamasic / full of ignorance.