When is it acceptable to caution the reader of disputes as to the origin of a text or passage?

Question

This question starts was prompted by a note of caution given by user Keshav Srinivasan which reads:

One note of caution: it's believed that the Linga Purana contains a lot of interpolations, because other ancient works which quote the Linga Purana quote things that are not in the actual text we have and don't quote things which are in the text we have. This leads some people to believe that the Linga Purana we have today is a complete interpolation, but it could just be that it contains so many interpolations that the overlap between content quoted in other works and content preserved is negligible. See page 93 of this book for details.

I've observed similar cautionary notes elsewhere in the past. For example: Here:

the Shiva Purana suggests that it happened close to the time of creation, but there's reason to believe that the account found in the Shiva Purana is a later interpolation.

...or here:

One note of caution: references to Ganesha in ancient Hindu scripture are few and far between, since Ganesha only rose to popularity later on, so there is a possibility that this may be an interpolation in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana. (I raise a similar issue in my answer here concerning a passage in the Shiva Purana.)

Now, I must confess: I find these notes insulting; to my reading, saying that Linga Purana is completely interpolated is an insult to Sãdhakas who are doing various Sadhanas and to devotees who are worshipping Parameswara with hymns of Linga Purana.

That said, I recognize that Hinduism Stack Exchange is not a place of worship, but rather a venue for documenting - as accurately as possible - the nature of belief and worship.

So my question for all of you is: can such cautionary notes be considered informative and preserved, or should they be be seen as potentially divisive opinions and removed?

Answer 1

I agree that notes of caution like that shouldn't be added to any question or answer, it applies to everyone not just one particular user.

Views can vary from person to person, some might think Work A is interpolated, some will say Work B is interpolated but in the end, these are pure speculations. There is no way to know which is interpolated and which is not but adding such caution notices based on personal preference is the wrong thing to do.

New users visit the site every day, they could read such an answer and come to the conclusion that because a 40k+ rep user posted it, this must be correct. More reputation gives you more authority in the eyes of new users and they can get affected.

This also starts an unwanted trend - people from different sects will add such notices which will say other sects can be rejected because their texts are all interpolation. And their source would be a line or two from an unknown book floating on Internet somewhere.

Take for example this question on Ghandaberunda, the user just to prove his point put references from a comic book!! I mean is that all left now? Just because there aren't any scriptural references, we have the liberty to add quotes from comic book? In that question, I can't find any such caution of notice which says Gandhaberunda might be later interpolation, even the question says "What scriptures discuss..." when in fact, the title should be "Does any scriptures discuss..."

In the comments section on a particular answer in that question, the user writes

OK, but whether there are many scriptures that describe him or only a few, I'm trying to find the ones that do describe him. There are definitely some, because the article I linked to says that Ghandaberunda "is mentioned in some Puranas and in certain regional scriptures in South India", and it even names one of them.

Now the user has already made up his mind that references to Ghandaberunda exists in scriptures when no one till date has ever found one.

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

I believe such activities should be stopped as it only harms the community. Counter notices can be posted and within no time, this site will become a mess. Also, such unwanted lines of text can also confuse users, for example, I could say Krishna was avatara of Shiva, now this is completely valid because Shiva is one of the names of Vishnu.

New users have a tendency to post their sectarian beliefs but established users should stay away from such a practice.

Answer 2

So, I want to know on what basis is one claiming that one Purana is a complete interpolation, on what basis is one claiming that Ganesha popularity latter increased only?

First of all, it's virtually impossible, in matters regarding scriptures, to decide what's interpolated and what's not. Or in other words, definitively no conclusion can be arrived upon.

So, unwanted portion of passages like "that is interpolated and that is not as per me or as per XYZ" should not be posted at all. Because that only leads to more arguments and debates. Because counter arguments can always be produced. And, more importantly, because, OP (in most cases) has not asked about it.

And, also, in this particular user's case, he adds such unwanted passages before or after his main posts just to promote his sectarian biases, a practice which also is to be condemned, specially because he is trying to do so by attempting to demean important scriptures and beliefs of many other Hinduism practitioners and aspirants.

Secondly, if the question is not asking about interpolation issues at all , then certainly such passages, if posted, should be edited out of the concerned posts. We can do it ourselves or we can flag them seeking a moderator's attention.

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

No, IMO it should not be allowed. The posts which are about interpolation issues, or about what "scholars" think on such and such scripture being interpolated or not-saving those cases obviously.

So, I suggest him to keep his scholarly works in his pocket or he can express it in sites like Mythology SE or History SE which maybe suitable place to do so.

Well said, exactly my view too. :)

Answer 3

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

I definitely recommend not to add such "notes on interpolations". Finding "Interpolations" in scriptures is a complex job and no two scholars or Acharyas have same opinion on all interpolations in various Hindu scriptures. More importantly, OP has never asked about interpolations in those posts and these notes are redundant.

A user tend to believe some portions of scriptures which don't suit his/her philosophy are interpolations. If every user adds such notes at end of their answers in which they don't believe, site will be difficult to maintain and these notes generate unnecessary comments and debates.

For example, an Advaitin has to post an answer what only scripture says, be it Bhagavata Purana or Shiva Purana and what Acharyas like Shankaracharya or Ramanujacharya or Abhinavagupata or others say. He/She can even explain Acharyas words in his own words. But he/she can't use answers to prove Vishnu-Shiva equality even if question is not about their equality.

He/She can't post an answer saying some particular chapter of Shiva Purana, which say "Rudra is Supreme to Vishnu", is interpolated just to uphold his personal philosophy (it is not difficult to find books on interpolations). The later portion of answer is not required and question didn't ask anything about interpolations. If he does the same thing for many of his answers to uphold his philosophy, users of other philosophies will start adding their notes to uphold their philosophies to retort other user. This behavior turns detrimental to community and site will be difficult to maintain.

So, i suggest everyone to not add such notes, unless question is about interpolations.

Answer 4

why should not I also quote some other scholarly works which say like Bhagavata Purana is post Ramanuja work, Vishnu purana got it's complete form during about 7th CE, Vishnu is just a helper of Indra in RigVeda and latter texts like Puranas were made just to glorify him etc.... etc...

Yes, if you want to add caution of notices like Bhagavata Purana, Vishnu Purana etc., are later interpolations and not true, then yes, you may add it. There is no objection from anyone. There's no one stopping you to do so.

To me it sounds like this. A certain user has added some notes of caution saying a Purana you strongly believe as a later text and inauthentic work. So, you will also add some cautions of notes saying that some texts he believes in as later texts.

Remember that the same rule applies to you too. If you start giving some notices to your posts, then is it not wrong according to you following your logic? After couple of months, we may also see a meta post from another user saying that you should put your scholarly works in your back pocket and go to other stack exchange site. I really don't want such meta posts or the outcome.

You are allowed to write whatever you want until it is about Hinduism but take care to post references for that. As we know, "Citations are mandatory for this site".

Regarding, the claims about Radha and having tantras dedicated to her is not the matter to be addressed on meta.

Now, I'm not happy with this paragraph. Let me remind you of the motto of Stack Exchange.

Anybody can ask question. Anybody can answer. The best answers are upvoted to the top.

This is the motto of all the stack exchange sites. Hinduism is not an exception.

By saying that Linga Purana is completely interpolated, he is insulting Purana itself.

Did the user specifically say that he insults Linga Purana? Isn't this your assumption? He cited a book to back up his claim. So, I think tat should be enough for supporting. You said that it was written by 'some' scholar and objected the book. To write an answer, it doesn't matter who wrote the book. All the books about Hinduism are accepted on our site. The origin of the author of the book and his background is not of importance. All are considered sources only. There is no bias in it. If the book is wrong, then say it to the author of the post and down vote the answer because the answer is wrong.

He is insulting Sãdhakas who are doing various Sadhanas like Vajreshwari Vidya, Mrityunjaya sadhana based on Linga Purana; he is insulting devotees who are worshipping Parameswara with hymns of Linga Purana.

Above part is purely speculation. There is no proof of it.

So, I suggest him to keep his scholarly works in his pocket or he can express it in sites like Mythology SE or History SE which maybe suitable place to do so.

This paragraph gives me a strong feeling that the whole meta post is targetted at a single user. Keshav Srinivasan has been with the site before it entered private beta. He has written some good answers and posted good questions which helped the site to get its shape. Every user's contribution is valuable to a site. Even if they post a single question or an answer.

By what authority are you suggesting that he should not post his questions or answers here? Is this a personal thing? You have no right to deny an answer from any user or ask them to stop contributing because user is not important here, content is.

Why do you suggest him stopping contributing to the site? I ask who are you to ask another user to stop contributing? No other user can't say another user to stop contributing. If you don't like his posts, then it is okay. If you find any wrong in his pots, downvote. If there is really wrong in the post, flag for moderator intervention.

Note of Caution: We can also come of with tons of scholarly works and quote in last section of answer and in that case you might find it difficult.

Who is 'you' and 'we' in the passage and is it a warning to someone? I don't understand it but you can come up with any scholarly work. I don't think there's no one here to find it difficult. If you are trying to counter attack these type of notes of caution with your own, it won't be good for the site. Hinduism.stackexchange is not a correct site for war of words between faiths.

It is not a Hindu website. It is a website run by stackexchange about Hinduism.

I will ask why are you suggesting him to go to mythology.SE or History.SE? Do you think they do not support Hinduism? Why are you naming those sites? What is the intention behind naming them? Are they relevant at all in this matter?

Answer 5

I have observed instances/forms of concern trolling by this user. Slipping these notes about interpolations is one form of such concern trolling. I call for a deep review of this user's posts subtly trying to undermine or show advaita in a poor light by not reading texts in their entirety, and taking quotes out of context.

Answer 6

Let me start off by saying that I don't think is a good question for Hinduism Meta.SE.  Much of this is better handled through the main site, through methods like voting, commenting, chatrooms, etc.  But let me address your points one by one:

First of all there are many quotations from Vedas by ancient scholars which aren't found in todays versions/recensions. This doesn't prove that Vedas are heavily interpolated and similar for other texts too. There are also recensions of Puranas and when something isn't found in Purana it doesn't make it heavily interpolated.

This is a substantive criticism of my answer, justified or unjustified, and it has no place in Meta.  If you think my answer is incorrect, you are free to downvote it.  If you would like to point out something that you think is incorrect in my answer, you can post a comment on it.  And if you would like to discuss something I said in my answe, we can do so in one of the chatrooms.  But regardless this is not at all an issue of whether my answer breaks the rules of the site or not, which is what would be relevant for Meta.

Oh really! Which are these so called ancient works and which are the quotations that are not found. At least I know that one ancient work is Agama Pramanya of Yamunacharya where two quotes from Linga Purana are quoted and both are found in Linga Purana as I have answered.

If you would like to know which ancient works these are, you can look in the book I cited.  But again, this is a criticism of the substantive accuracy of my answer, not about its conformity to rules.

Who are these some people? Are they propagators of Hinduism? Are they ancient Acharyas? Are they some western scholarly works? He gave a book of some author. On reading surfacely this book contains things like: "This Kurma Purana passage contains things of Saivite origin and it also contains somewhat principles of Pashupata so it is of early origin and can't be latter than 700 AD." Oh so, this is the scholarly level of book. Interesting!

Now I am a Hindu, and as such I believe that the Kurma Purana was composed by Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa over 5000 years ago, not any time in the vicinity of 700 AD.  But we must keep in mind that this is not a Hindu website, but a website about Hinduism. And as such it is fine to quote the viewpointsof scholarly works about Hinduism, even ones written by Western Indologists.

Narada Purana contains Anukramani of every Purana and in the description of Linga Purana, it perfectly matches with the present Linga Purana Version. So, how is it that it is a complete interpolation? Obviously you may claim Narada Purana is also intetpolation. Nice!

This is again a substantive argument against my the correctness of my answer, and again it is irrelevant to Meta.

Note that the references of Lingodbhavam are found in plenty of poems of Sambandar (western dating 7th CE) and in also Tirumantiram(5th CE western dating), even the Skambha Sukta contains the reference that Prajapati taking a form of bird and going up towards Skambha. So, I'm not sure what is suggesting him to take it as interpolation.

Then you are free to raise that issue with me on the main site.

Oh so it's based on conclusion of scholars based on things like style of languages. Ok I see. If I see based on style of languages there are plenty of scholarly works which say that except Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya nearly all other Upanishads are post Buddhist, so whenever I quote from other Upanishads am I allowed to write: "One note of caution: These Upanishads like Mundaka and Prashna which I have quoted above are considered by many scholars to be post Buddhist so take it with a grain of salt."

Yes, you are allowed to say that.  Now as a Hindu, I think you would be wrong to say that, but again this is not a Hindu website, but a website about Hinduism.  We welcome people from all points of view here, as long as they follow the rules.

Or should I write: ... Or should I write: ... Or should I write: ... Or should I write:

Yes, are you allowed to say all of those things, whether I agree with those things or not.  If you are an atheist and you are answering a question on what the earliest scriptural reference to the caste system is, you can post a quote from the Purusha Sukta and and say that it's considered an interpolation by Western Indologists.  That would be perfectly relevant to answering the question, and while Indisagree with the notion that the Purusha Sukta is an interpolation, it would not be against the rules of the site to post.

So, I want to know on what basis is one claiming that one Purana is a complete interpolation, on what basis is one claiming that Ganesha popularity latter increased only?

Again, I'm perfectly happy to answer that, but Meta is the wrong place to do so.

Ganesha is son of Parameswara and Shakti. He is in exalted position always.

You don't need to tell me that.  Have you seen my room?  But again, this is irrelevant to Meta.

So, on what basis is he making the claim. If his basis is some so called scholarly works, why should not I also quote some other scholarly works which say like Bhagavata Purana is post Ramanuja work, Vishnu purana got it's complete form during about 7th CE, Vishnu is just a helper of Indra in RigVeda and latter texts like Puranas were made just to glorify him etc.... etc...

Yes, you are free to quote such scholarly works.  And if people disagree with you, it should be handled through voting, commenting, etc, not through moderation.

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

Yes, discussing interpolations in Hindu scripture is completely allowed on this site. And moreover, when I discuss interpolations, it is completely relevant to the answer at hand. If I post a story based on some Purana, and I think there's good evidence that the story is an interpolation in that Purana, then it serves the accuracy of the answer to mention that fact.

By saying that Linga Purana is completely interpolated, he is insulting Purana itself, he is insulting Sãdhakas who are doing various Sadhanas like Vajreshwari Vidya, Mrityunjaya sadhana based on Linga Purana; he is insulting devotees who are worshipping Parameswara with hymns of Linga Purana.

I am not insulting anyone. To make a statement of fact, especially when backed up by sources as I did in the Linga Purana case, is not an insult. Now if you disagree with the correctness of the statement, again that is to be handled by voting, commenting, etc. But for the record, I do not condemn the Sadhana of anyone. It could be that that Sadhana is perfectly authentic, but it may not originally be from the Linga Purana, but may instead be from some other scripture.

So, I suggest him to keep his scholarly works in his pocket or he can express it in sites like Mythology SE or History SE which maybe suitable place to do so.

No, this is just as suitable place to post such things as Mythology.SE and History.SE. Again, this is not a Hindu website, but a website about Hinduism.

We can also come of with tons of scholarly works and quote in last section of answer and in that case you might find it difficult.

You are free to do so, if you think the statements you are making and the works you are citing are correct. But if you want to do it as some kind of retaliation, I would advise against it.