Mythology vs itihasa?

Question

What is the more appropriate English word to be used when we talk about Ramayana, Mahabharata, or puranas and other scriptures? The use of the word "mythology" is quite common but I hear that "itihasa" is the more appropriate term. In that case, in what contexts would "mythology" be an appropriate term?

Can someone throw some light on this?

Ithihasas. Mythology are all English terms. Wrong translations. — Agamas Tantras, Aug 04 '19 at 17:36
@ParabrahmanJyoti Ithihas is a Hindi word, It means history. And I usually prefer to use the word "Ancient History" for timelines of Ramayana and Mahabharata. :P — V.Aggarwal, Aug 05 '19 at 03:50
@V.Aggarwal You are correct. Ithihasa meaning itself is history!!! — Agamas Tantras, Aug 05 '19 at 04:40
Possible duplicate of Why are only Ramayana and Mahabharata classified as Itihasa? — codeczar, Aug 05 '19 at 05:09
This is suited for a language site to check which word is better to use. This is already asked on English language and usage Better alternative for Mythology by a site moderator. This is subjective and not really suitable for our site. If we want to discuss tag issue, [meta] is right place. — Sarvabhouma, Aug 05 '19 at 07:02
would you call the story of Hitler as history or mythology ? itihasa means 'history'. it happened. mythology generally refers to events that are so old, that some facts get mixed with fiction and it's hard to separate the two. however, with the case of Ramayana & Mahabharata, the original texts are preserved with great caution, and chances of interpolation are very little. so, itihasa or history is the correct term. — ram, Aug 05 '19 at 22:01
Purana means not mythology, but ancient history, and its derivative purani means old, long past — Aoi. T_015, Aug 07 '19 at 10:05
Isn't Mythology a English word for Myth. Ithihasa is History. Choose appropriately. — Up-In-Air, Aug 07 '19 at 15:13

score 11 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 17 '20 at 08:59

We need to see what term is used for those scriptures in our scriptures. We should stick to it.

The word used is "Itihasa" only. Here are various references from various scriptures:

One should make them [i.e., the invited Brahmanas] listen to the Vedic recitations, Dharma-Sastras, Itihasas (History) Puranas, and the most beautiful portion [of the S'astras] dealing with [the performance of] the S'raddha. (66)

Usana smriti, Chapter 5 , Verse 66

By reading the principal and minor aphorisms, the Puranas and Itihasas (Histories) daily, one gratifies them with streams of meat, thickened milk, oudana (barley cakes) and honey, (11)

Katyayana Smriti, Chapter 14, Verse 11

The pilferer of learning and books is born dumb. He should give unto, a Brahmana, works on Nyaya (Logic) and Itihasa (History) with money presents. (22)

Satatapa Smriti, Chapter 4, Verse 22

Then the best of Brahmanas should study the Vedas, histories (Itihasas), and the kindred branches of knowledge (Vedangas), give instructions to his own pupils, and feed the good Brahmanas. (4)

Vyasa Smriti, Chapter 3, Verse 4

So, either we have to use the word Itihasa or we can try to find an English equivalent. Now, for many scriptural terms we don't have English equivalents like for Purana we simply use Purana. For Veda, Tantra it's the same.

However, for Itihasa we do have an English word which is History. Hindu scriptures don't define what mythology is. The stories that are found in scriptures are depicted as incidents that had happened in ancient past. They also give the Yuga and time periods when those incidents occurred.

"Hindu scriptures don't define what mythology is." Isn't it same for every word other than Sanskrit? It doesn't define the word "scripture: too. It talks about the word "shastra". Scripture is near English translation for the word shastra Isn't it obvious that Hindu scripture doesn't define English word "mythology" formed from the Greek root "mythos"? A few people changed the word to a negative connotation indicating false connotation forgetting its original meaning for which it was created. — Sarvabhouma, Aug 05 '19 at 10:38
"Itihasa we do have an English word which is History. Hindu scriptures don't define what mythology is." This is the case for every myth. The term myth is simply that word from the ancient Helenic culture (μῦθος). The connotation of "false" is a new innovation and not what scholars mean by the term. (See my comment on Aman's Answer) — Rubellite Yakṣī, Dec 01 '19 at 13:10
@Sarvabhouma - 'mythos' is likely derived from mithya (or falsehood). most words in english language have Sanskrit root — ram, Sep 16 '22 at 00:27

score 4 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 08:59

4

Myth literally means fiction and mythology is the the study of myths. Since in Hindu purans, deities have supernatural powers which people simply ignore and say that isn't possible in real life. Thus, they call it as a myth and thus mythology. Also, according to Oxford Dictionary:

mythology

A collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

And according to Religion and mythology:

Mythology is the main component of Religion. It refers to systems of concepts that are of high importance to a certain community, making statements concerning the supernatural or sacred. Religion is the broader term, besides mythological system, it includes ritual. A given mythology is almost always associated with a certain religion such as Greek mythology with Ancient Greek religion. Disconnected from its religious system, a myth may lose its immediate relevance to the community and evolve—away from sacred importance—into a legend or folktale.

There is a complex relationship between recital of myths and enactment of rituals.

Therefore, for an Atheist, it's a myth but for a believer, it's history (itihAsa/इतिहास) or theology. Moreover, if you consider Ramayana and Maharabharata, they aren't Puranas, they're "epic poems".

edited Jun 17 '20 at 08:59

Community

1

answered Aug 04 '19 at 19:46

Aman

366
2
15

2

The academic usage is quite different to the lay usage. The first two usages (meaning the oldest) listed at Wiktionary.org are "1. A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc. 2. (uncountable) Such stories as a genre." The connotation of "false" came later by lay people, who judged all such stories to be false. This has tainted the word in popular discourse. – Rubellite Yakṣī Dec 01 '19 at 13:05
@RubelliteYakṣī - if there are 2 usages of a word, and one of them conveys a meaning opposite to the other, the entire word should be junked. if 10 people think myth means tradition, while 90 people think it means fiction, what is the point of using the miniscule minority's opinion even if it was the original meaning ? words are meant to convey meaning. and words in english language change meaning over time. that's why we got rid of the term 'mythology' on our site – ram Sep 16 '22 at 00:31
@mar Why use the less understood academic meaning of a word? Because of the appeal to popularity fallacy. The purpose of any SE site is to spread knowledge & accuracy, not fit in with what's popular. I would be making the same argument for people thinking "theory" means "best guess," or for people who think "inflammable" means "fireproof." Sure, language evolves, but it's irresponsible to passively promote ignorance. – Rubellite Yakṣī Sep 19 '22 at 14:51
@RubelliteYakṣī - because language is dependent on audience. would you teach calculus derivation and integration using greek symbol formulas to a 10 year old cos it is the academic version of math, or just teach him how to add small rectangles together ? theory does mean best guess btw. all scientists specifically say "given the evidence so far, this is our best guess. tomorrow if we find another conflicting evidence, we will change our guess". u r the one promoting ignorance cos you refuse to accept that the same word has 2 different meanings, and meanings in english language are subjective – ram Sep 28 '22 at 06:57
@mar This is far past relevant. I already said there were multiple usages years ago and why we, a site for advancing knowledge, should utilize the academic usage. The decision has long ago been made. You already won. Now you are just being defamatory and abusive. Please stop. – Rubellite Yakṣī Oct 10 '22 at 13:46
@RubelliteYakṣī - you are repeating the same trope about 'academic usage' as if it is something set in stone. The only languages where usage/meaning is set in stone are divine ones like Sanskrit (and Tamil and maybe couple others). Everywhere else, the usage should change according to audience. For e.g. the 'academic' usage of word 'intercourse' is 'discussion'. Will you use that when talking to your family ? Nobody is being defamatory or abusive. You are mistaking analogies for condescension. You first accused me of promoting ignorance, but when i said the same of you, you took offense – ram Oct 10 '22 at 17:29
@mar "Nobody is being defamatory or abusive." "u r the one promoting ignorance" is ad hominem. You are also repeating questions I have already answered about a topic settled 2-3 years ago. This needlessly sends me notifications. "For e.g. the 'academic' usage of word 'intercourse' is 'discussion'. Will you use that when talking to your family?" In an academic discussion, I would use the academic language with anyone. This site is for learning. It is not social media. I did not accuse you personally of anything. I said that the use of language could promote ignorance instead of knowledge. – Rubellite Yakṣī Oct 10 '22 at 17:46
"I said that the use of language could promote ignorance instead of knowledge" - u used passive voice, i used active voice - the accusation remains same in both cases. "This site is for learning. It is not social media" - meh, semantics.. one can learn from anywhere. also, there is no guarantee that that audience is also of academic mindset here, maybe only the contributors are. also the word myth is overwhelmingly used to mean 'false'. trying to assign it a meaning that maybe 10% of people accept is going against the nature of language. @RubelliteYakṣī – ram Oct 10 '22 at 18:20
@mar Confident use of statistics without supplying their source makes it seem like you are just making up stats based on your personal experiences. – Rubellite Yakṣī Apr 06 '23 at 16:38
@RubelliteYakṣī - don't require statistics to understand that myth means false in current world. tomorrow will you ask statistics to determine that false means untrue, and statistics to determine that untrue means lie etc. – ram Apr 07 '23 at 16:41
@mar As you say, we use words differently in different domains. Yes, people CAN learn on social media, but this entire site was built purposely for learning-teaching through Q&A. I would say, then, we have a responsibility to accuracy that social media doesn't necessitate (though can have). Accuracy entails precisely defining words (and other symbols) within the context of that domain. This doesn't prevent people from using other meanings for that word outside that domain. Since the domain of this site is academic, then it's sensible to use academic words and their associated meaning. – Rubellite Yakṣī Apr 15 '23 at 08:31
@mar Above are my premises and conclusion. I thought they were obvious, but clearly obviousness is subjective. If you think my conclusion is wrong, then there must (necessarily) be either something wrong with my use of logic (and feel free to call me on it, we can't improve if the mistakes aren't pointed out) OR one of my premises is faulty (if so, which one and how?). All you have to do is demonstrate either of those things. As far as I can tell you've yet to present a premise, just your conclusion and some browbeating. – Rubellite Yakṣī Apr 15 '23 at 08:38
@RubelliteYakṣī - your premise is that English words can't (or don't) change their meanings. Or your premise is that academic/dictionary definitions of a word are more true/important/effective than their colloquial usage. Both are wrong. the purpose of language is to convey meaning from one person to another. If I say 'blahkafelch is murtab' - you won't understand it cos you don't speak Klobgec language. If we want to converse in a language, then we have to agree to common sounds and their associated meanings. – ram Apr 21 '23 at 14:14
If 9 people say the sound 'myth' is associated with the meaning false and 1 person (you) says 'myth' means ancient, then, if you are talking to such an audience, and use the word 'myth' - 9 people will assume you mean false. if you are aware that a word has multiple meanings, then it is up to you to communicate which one you mean. in this site, we have decided as a group that mythology means false. yes, this is an academic site. yes, the word myth has multiple meanings. so we have a choice - say myth and qualify it with myth (ancient not lie) each time, or stop using the word altogether. – ram Apr 21 '23 at 14:18
Academic sites use academic tools & methods. Such decisions belie how greatly Hinduism Stack Exchange differs from most. I've seen similar in Biblical Hermeneutics, but not others (and even there, not the same way nor to the same extent). Yet, here I have contributed the most. Comment chains like this certainly make it feel Sisyphean. Particular when nothing new has been said. – Rubellite Yakṣī May 15 '23 at 03:46

score -1 · Answer 3 · answered Aug 05 '19 at 22:27

Secular historians use history or itihāsa when referring to events on geologic time scale that don't contradict science which is primarily based on pratyakṣa and anumāna pramāṇas.

So when it comes to the two Hindu epics, Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, these people consider only those events described in them to be factual/historical that conform to the laws of nature.

Take for example these two statements from Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa:

(Bāla Kāṇḍa, Daśaratha speaking to Viśvāmitra:)

Sixty thousand years have passed from my birth, oh! Vishvamitra, and this Rama is engendered at this age, that too with tribulations, hence taking Rama with you will be inappropriate of you. [1-20-10b, 11a]

(Yuddha Kāṇḍa, Vālmīki narrating:)

Having enjoyed the kingship for ten thousand years, Rama performed a hundred horse-sacrifices, in which good horses were sacrificed and numerous gifts bestowed. [6-128-96]

The astronomical figures used to describe Daśaratha's age and Rāma's reign directly contradict nature (and also Śruti) so such statements are usually considered mythology (folklore) and ignored by historians when determining lineages of kings.

Here's another story from the Mahābhārata which narrates how a fish delivered two human twins:

And the king [Uparichara Vasu] became possessed with desire, and he saw not his wife before him. Maddened by desire he was roaming hither and thither, when he saw a beautiful Asoka decked with dense foliage, its branches covered with flowers. And the king sat at his ease in the shade of that tree. And excited by the fragrance of the season and the charming odours of the flowers around, and excited also by the delicious breeze, the king could not keep his mind away from the thought of the beautiful Girika. And beholding that a swift hawk was resting very near to him, the king, acquainted with the subtle truths of Dharma and Artha, went unto him and said, 'Amiable one, carry thou this seed (semen) for my wife Girika and give it unto her. Her season hath arrived.'

The hawk, swift of speed, took it from the king and rapidly coursed through the air. While thus passing, the hawk was seen by another of his species. Thinking that the first one was carrying meat, the second one flew at him. The two fought with each other in the sky with their beaks. While they were fighting, the seed fell into the waters of the Yamuna. And in those waters dwelt an Apsara of the higher rank, known by the name of Adrika, transformed by a Brahmana's curse into a fish. As soon as Vasu's seed fell into the water from the claws of the hawk, Adrika rapidly approached and swallowed it at once. That fish was, some time after, caught by the fishermen. And it was the tenth month of the fish's having swallowed the seed. From the stomach of that fish came out a male and a female child of human form. The fishermen wondered much, and wending unto king Uparichara (for they were his subjects) told him all. They said, 'O king, these two beings of human shape have been found in the body of a fish!' The male child amongst the two was taken by Uparichara. That child afterwards became the virtuous and truthful monarch Matsya.

This blog gives a more rational, acceptable and historical account of the same story:

Adrika was a maiden belonging to the Matsya (fishermen) tribe and Vasu beget two children in her, probably when he was away from his wife Girika. Adrika was described as an Apsara, due to her beauty. Apsaras were mentioned as extremely beautiful. The word 'Apsara' can be divided into 'Apa' (water) and Sara (lakes). They were often described as women seen in the vicinity of water-bodies like lakes and rivers. A Matsya lady (fisher-women) too lives close to water-bodies like seas, lakes and rivers. There are also myths about fairies called Matsya-Kanyakas (fish-women / fisher-women) who were half fish and half women. Such tales were also similar to the tales of Apsaras. Thus Matsya Kanyakas and Apsaras seem to be same. Both these terms later assumed the meaning of fairies living close to water bodies, and Apsaras in particular was formerly their tribal name. Fisher-women were the Apsaras and the Apsaras were the fisher-women.

Adrika probably died while delivering the twin babies. Death of women after delivering babies, especially twins, were quite common in those days. The fishermen after learning about the affair between Adrika and the king might have taken the babies to the palace. King after knowing that he was the father of the twins could have raised them in his palace. The male among them later became the famous Matsya king. It is probable that this Matsya king was the forefather of king Virata. Similarly the female among them was probably the ancestor of Satyavati whom king Shantanu wished to marry. The territory of the Matsya chief, who was the father of Satyavati was on the banks of river Yamuna where as the territory of king Virata was south-west to Yamuna in Rajasthan comprising the districts of Alwar and Bharatpur.

So whether one uses history, itihāsa ('it happened thus') or mythology ('exaggerated account of a real event or fictitious altogether') for things described in Hindu scriptures, really depends on the nature of the stories and also if the individual generally interprets them literally or allegorically.

If your faith requires you to give utmost importance to śabda pramāṇa, you may have to take everything literally or go with your guru's interpretation when things don't make sense.

If on the other hand, you follow no particular belief system, you are free to call things that conform to reality as history (or itihāsa, it happened thus) and the unbelievable stories as mythology (traditional accounts, either exaggerated or fictitious).

Same goes for Purāṇas and any other Hindu scripture.

So all the questions tagged with mythology are about folklore according to you? (Have not downvoted yet) — Rickross, Aug 07 '19 at 16:00
'questions tagged with mythology' - this is a discussion meant for meta and no way related to what OP asked here so I won't answer it here. 'Have not downvoted yet' - what are you waiting for? :) @Rickross — Say No To Censorship, Aug 07 '19 at 18:49
You have posted what you feel and I guess that won't change with sites. — Rickross, Aug 08 '19 at 06:14
Why can't a person live for thousand years? It is biologically possible. Also Ramayan happened millions of years ago so you can't compare today human beings with them. — Lokesh, Aug 09 '19 at 02:06
"Why can't a person live for thousand years?" - If you want an answer based on Śruti, see commentary on Isha Upanishad, Verse 2: "the full span of life, according to the Vedas, is one hundred years: Shatāyur vai purushah". If you want an answer based on science, see Hayflick limit and Cellular senescence. If you still want to hang on to the idea that Rama lives for 10,000 years, no one is stopping you. @Lokesh — Say No To Censorship, Aug 09 '19 at 04:54
What about (Atharva Veda 17.1.27) which says "sahasra Ayuh sukritah chareyam || ------ For all thousand years of our life, may we be doing good work. (Atharva Veda 17.1.27)" — Lokesh, Aug 09 '19 at 05:06
This is how R L Kashyap translates that verse. Assuming AV 17.1.27 does say humans live for 1000 years, what do you trust when two śabda pramāṇas contradict? Check this answer. @Lokesh — Say No To Censorship, Aug 09 '19 at 23:55
"Why can't a person live for thousand years? It is biologically possible". Not it is not. Your telomers are only have so much length. You can maybe reach 120 - 130 years but that is about it. @Lokesh — Wikash_, Aug 10 '19 at 06:16
We cannot fly. That's what people used to say before airplanes were invented. — Lokesh, Aug 10 '19 at 12:05
@Lokesh We are still flying by sitting in an aeroplane. We are not flying like birds. There is a difference in both the cases. — Sarvabhouma, Aug 21 '19 at 06:01
@Sarvabhouma "We cannot fly" doesn't mean "We cannot fly like birds", it simply means we cannot fly. — Lokesh, Aug 21 '19 at 06:23
@Wikash_ What about we create new cells? if all cells in our body regenerate, we have a new body and hence we can last infinitely. Similarly there are 1000 such possibilities. Just because you haven't seen how it can be possible doesn't imply it can't be true. — Lokesh, Aug 21 '19 at 06:24
@Lokesh please read my message. Your body can make mistakes when cells divide and hence telomers can solve this but since this length is finite you cannot live forever. — Wikash_, Aug 21 '19 at 19:59
@Wikash_ At first glance, your view seems skeptical but, have you considered there are variables (or will be variables) about which you do not yet know? Ray Kurzweil (a futurist with a good prediction record) predicts humans will achieve immortality by 2045. So, while I presume the rational, I recognize that 1) I know too little to call most things impossible (probability being easier to handle), and 2) just because prakṛiti/māyā is internally logically consistent, doesn't mean puruṣa or the totality of Brahman operates on the same principles—thus I leave space for "impossible" things — Rubellite Yakṣī, Dec 01 '19 at 13:34
@RubelliteYakṣī prediction says absolutely nothing. There were many predictions done by great scientists which resulted in nothing. 1. It is not easier for me to call things impossible it just a fact, do not blame me for not knowing your facts. 2. Maya is internally completely inconsistent as many gurus differ on its working, processes and even its inherent definition. This stackexchange shows it. Just look for maya and see how many different opinions arise and how many people differ on its definition and process. Sorry but facts cannot lie: I cannot do anything about that. — Wikash_, Dec 04 '19 at 05:03
@Wikash_ "it just a fact, do not blame me for not knowing your facts." What? I'm talking about that we (humans) don't know all the variables that will ever be involved right now. It may seem impossible today, then we learn something new and change everything. Also, Kurzweil's prediction isn't limited to a single body. You can't call something impossible when we don't know all there is to know about it. The modern world would seem impossible to an ancient person. — Rubellite Yakṣī, Dec 04 '19 at 16:06
@RubelliteYakṣī 1)you are right. If there is evidence that something can be done something which might seem impossible now may be possible in the future and alas there is currently no evidence for immortality thusly thisbis at the moment impossible. — Wikash_, Dec 04 '19 at 19:30

Mythology vs itihasa?

3 Answers3

mythology