What is the story of Sharaba?

The Sharabha Narasimha saga seems to be sectarian escalation and counter-escalation - but

Whenever alleged material from canonical Sanskrit sources like Puranas are cited - they need to be verified.

The partisans from the Narasimha side can wax poetic about Gandabherunda, since that is not canonical scripture.

I am challenging all "citations" by user808 who isn't here anymore. If his citations are supported by somebody else - thats fine. Otherwise his post must be severely edited to only include verifiable material.

User Vivekananda Viveka writes

Yes. Lord Shiva can be annihilated . It may not sound nice to follower of lord Shiva

This is true - no less a scripture than Mahabharata says Narayanastra can kill Siva and Pashupathastra can kill Vishnu - but there are poetic exaggerations - why focus on these irrelevancies?

Unfortunately due to advent of shaivism lot of original scriptures were burnt by kings who ruled southern part of modern india

This is incendiary material and should be deleted outright.

Hiranykashyap and Sharaba can be seen on the lap of Lord Gandaberunda Narasimha.

This seems to be pure hate and has to be backed up with evidence.

our friend user808 says

"The purAnas state further that when Narasimha was appeased by PrahlAda, he resurrected Shiva back to life upon the prayers of pArvati."

needs verification.

User808 cites a lot of South Indian Vaishnavite lore - it is not important to me if those are verifiable.

But VishnuPurana hardly mentions Narasimha and EVERYTHING he cites about the sharabha-narasimha episode from other vaishnavite puranas seems suspect.

HSE is not a place to indulge in one's sectarian agenda using unverifiable material.

  • The same Question you have mentioned, also has an overtly biased and sectarian answer (the last answer perhaps, to be precise), & from tone, language, way of writing it and incessant use of partisan pictures, which one can see in that answer. Why don't you say something on that too? Shouldn't that be deleted too? – peace Mar 26 at 14:03
  • Tone is a minor issue. citing canonical sanskrit sources without a basis is more serious @vivikta – S K Mar 26 at 14:24
  • A seed is a very minor entity until it adds up to a vast Tree. The tone is the seed, and ... and what all you have mentioned in your post is the vast tree repercussions of that "tone". It's a vicious cycle. The root cause must be depleted or solved too. – peace Mar 26 at 14:52
  • Tone is subjective. on the other hand, If you say scripture X says Y and a check shows that it does not - that is outright lying. HSE cannot tolerate that @vivikta – S K Mar 26 at 15:49
  • Very well then, agreed. And, by that logic of "tone being subjective", it may thus be also concluded that, even the presumably sectarian beliefs are to be judged on their subjectivity too. Because, there's more than one authoritative scriptures, which will, for example, say that "Brahmaa is a post". And hence it shouldn't be considered as something offensive by anyone. It's a Two way Road, and one can't have it just their own way, while totally Neglecting the other problem, which is as much Real as the first problem. – peace Mar 26 at 16:24
  • you are missing the point. @vivikta . "brahma is a post" is offensive (1) scripture X says brahma is a post" (2) sect x believes "Brahma is a post" are not. The bald "brahma is a post" insults scriptures like the Ramayana. – S K Mar 26 at 19:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .