0

While Mahabharata and Ramayana are historical texts as it is explicitly mentioned in them that they are historical texts (Ithihas).

While whether or not Purans are historical text is a debatable topic. As the word "Puran" is confusing.
Why the word "Itihas" was not used for them ?

My question is -

  1. Are the events mentioned in Purans referenced in ithihas as being historical events ? Like someone in Mahabharat referencing events mentioned in Puran as a historical event ? I mean it should be clear and explicit like - Some one saying " This event is written is this Puran" and he is using it as a historical event."

  2. What are the points in favor of Purans being considered as historical text depicting true historical events ?

  3. What are the points against Purans being considered as historical text ?

river
  • 6,675
  • 1
  • 8
  • 26
  • itihāsa texts comprises of Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa and Purāṇas. So, this was mere confusion on your part according to me. However, an important point to note that is although these are called itihāsa that doesn't imply they are actual history of what actually happened thousands of years ago. – Bingming Dec 25 '22 at 20:00
  • In the Purāṇas, you do see references to Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata events, sometimes also to Vedas and other texts. However, these references are usually not given in a rigorous way like they are in modern books and papers discussing medieval historical events. itihāsa literally translates to history, but in this context it means the history that we know and was passed on orally through generation, the history that was propagated in the culture, it doesn't mean the actual historical events. – Bingming Dec 25 '22 at 20:03
  • The gist is Purāṇas are itihāsa. But they aren't actual historical records. More like cultural history. – Bingming Dec 25 '22 at 20:07
  • @Bingming What is cultural history ? So, Acc to you Mahabharat war didn't happen ? Krishna didn't lift Govardhan etc ? – river Dec 25 '22 at 20:15
  • Well, I didn't say that Kr̥ṣṇa did or didn't do that. Nor did I say Purāṇic history is true or false. Cultural history is more like what's believed through generations, it's part of culture. But it's not like historical record. – Bingming Dec 25 '22 at 20:17
  • And since it is part of people's beliefs through centuries, that is why it's not inappropriate to call it itihāsa. Each tradition has their own itihāsa, Jaina tradition has their own, Buddhist has their own. And similarly the Purāṇic and devotional Hindu traditions have their own itihāsa. Here, I am talking about itihāsa as in cultural or traditional history. For e.g. the traditional history of Jaina, has different Rāmāyaṇa, they have tīrthaṅkaras before Pārśvanātha, and many other things. Buddhist has traditional history of Buddhas existing many years before Gautama. – Bingming Dec 25 '22 at 20:19
  • This is what I mean by cultural and traditional history. The itihāsa is usually used for Hindu cultural and traditional history. But many traditions have their own traditional histories. This traditional history is differentiated from the actual history which is not subjective. – Bingming Dec 25 '22 at 20:24
  • The traditional history depends on the beliefs of the people and their cultural values, actual history is objective and it may include beliefs and values but it doesn't depend on them. So, I hope it is clear, what I am saying. If you disagree with me, that's fine. – Bingming Dec 25 '22 at 20:28

0 Answers0