पुराण-प्रामाण्यम्

Puranic episodes are not considered as entirely pramana by Vaishnavas. It is not that one purana is pramana and other is not. Rather even statements from so called tamasika puranas are also considered as pramana while some from sattvika are not.

Valmiki Ramayana is considered as parama pramana (with little interpolations). The yardstick used by SVs is that any episode which is not mentioned in VR and which is found in other places - in an attempt to show supremacy to some other Deva - is to be treated as worthless and not pramana.

Among itihAsa-s - As Ramayana is older and tradition has it that Veda itself took the shape of Ramayana through valmiki, Ramayana is held to be the superior of the two in SV tradition. Whereas among madhvas, Vyasa Bharata holds greater strength

Also, SVs don’t really consider all versions of Ramayana to have been written by various sages as claimed. Apart from VR, we don’t give prominence to any other text. Others may be cited only here and there to the extent that they do not contradict VR. VR alone is taken as proper pramana. Also, most of the other Ramayanas seem to have been unknown to the pre 1000 CE acharyas. That is another reason for SVs generally discarding them as pramana. Even certain Vaishnava leaning texts are not considered by SVs as pramana for same reason (since they are seen as later innovations). E.g. you won’t see any SV quoting Rama tapaniya or Gopala tapaniya.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

“इतिहास-पुराणाभ्यां वेदान् समुपबृंहयेद्” इति वचनेन
पुराणापेक्षया +इतिहासौ प्रमाणतराव् इति वदन्ति।
तत्र रामायण-महाभारतयोस् तारतम्यं क्वचिद् उक्तम्??