Why are the Puranas open for interpretation?

[Guest guest]

Why aren't they considered fact like the rest of Vedic text? I believe being a religious Hindu means, you need to believe in your scriptures. Alot of scholarly Hindus like to call Puranas myth, and doubt their own religion. It bothers me when people say Hindu Mythology, they should say Hindu Theology. No one ever says Christian Mythology or Muslim Mythology. People say Greek Mythology, because all the worshippers are dead. Sanatana Dharma is not dead, neither are it's followers. Am I wrong in thinking, all religious Hindus need to believe in their scripture? Do you agree?

[Guest guest]

 

The veda-s are open to interpretation. If you look at how the traditional systems differ in interpreting some key sections, you would be boggled.

 

The puranas are actually more simplistic in nature and are less prone to the evils of interpretation. But due to large scale interpolation, people tend to be catious about leaning too much on them.

 

There is a difference between a scholarly hindu and the religious hindu. The religious person is mandated to believe in everything. The scholar on the other hand goes by facts and evidence. Quite naturally then, scholars will be inclined to diregard the value of puranas.

 

This problem is minimized for Chrisitians and Muslims because they have single texts. If they had one gadzillion texts to deal with, you would see the same behavior there too.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

for replying. I understand what you mean. We do have the most extensive group of scripture of any other religion. I'd just like the respect of people saying Hindu Theology, instead of Hindu Mythology. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Guest guest]

Can you give an example of the where Mythology is incorrectly substituted for Theology.

 

Do you say there is no mythology in the Hindu texts?

 

What is the difference between theology and mythology?

[Guest guest]

you are right. "mythology" sounds like "aesop's fables"