I know Indians get upset when the term "mythology" is used
But what is mythology? It concerns "traditional accounts concerning the early history of a people"
Mythology can have large dollops of truth (not just grains)
Without being strictly verifiable history
But what is mythology? It concerns "traditional accounts concerning the early history of a people"
Mythology can have large dollops of truth (not just grains)
Without being strictly verifiable history
The reason "Mythology" offends us is because it has assumed pejorative meanings in other quotidian contexts
E.g. We often talk of "Myths vs reality" when discussing common misconceptions around us
But mythology in itself is not such an inaccurate word to describe the itihAsas
E.g. We often talk of "Myths vs reality" when discussing common misconceptions around us
But mythology in itself is not such an inaccurate word to describe the itihAsas
A legitimate counter to this can be -
We dont use the term "mythology" to discuss early Abrahamic history...e.g. the prophets of the Old Testament, or for that matter even Jesus
That's a totally fair riposte
In my view that's mythology too
We dont use the term "mythology" to discuss early Abrahamic history...e.g. the prophets of the Old Testament, or for that matter even Jesus
That's a totally fair riposte
In my view that's mythology too
Unfortunately given the enormous stature of the Bible in the West for so many centuries and its inextricable linkage to notions of history, people find it odd to use the term "myth" for it, even though it is mythology
In the West, people don't bat an eyelid before regarding Iliad or Odyssey as mythology
But they don't regard Noah's Ark as mythology. Nor Moses. Or Jeremiah
Though Iliad too can possibly reveal much about the past of Mycaenean civilization pre Dorian invasion
But they don't regard Noah's Ark as mythology. Nor Moses. Or Jeremiah
Though Iliad too can possibly reveal much about the past of Mycaenean civilization pre Dorian invasion
Now is Acchiles somehow more inauthentic than say Noah?
Not really
There is likely a great deal of truth behind both, although the "traditional" accounts exaggerate (in BOTH cases)
Not really
There is likely a great deal of truth behind both, although the "traditional" accounts exaggerate (in BOTH cases)
Let's take Jesus vs Krishna as an example
The only verifiable "external" reference to Jesus is that of the pagan historian Tacitus in his Annals, written several decades after the supposed death of Jesus
The only verifiable "external" reference to Jesus is that of the pagan historian Tacitus in his Annals, written several decades after the supposed death of Jesus
kRSNa devakIputra too has an "external" reference - in Chandogya Upanishad - which is not a sAtvata / bhAgavata text
But while kRSNa is mythology, Jesus somehow is regarded as "history"
But while kRSNa is mythology, Jesus somehow is regarded as "history"
No one questions Jesus existed.
But his traditional account is not "verifiable history" as it has no independent attestation
But his traditional account is not "verifiable history" as it has no independent attestation
The term "mythology" will rankle less, if it is applied consistently across cultures
With no bias against traditions that do not originate in the Middle East
With no bias against traditions that do not originate in the Middle East
Post-script : There are actually two "external" references to Jesus. Not one
Tacitus and Josephus
By "external" I mean near contemporary references by writers outside the Judeo-Christian tradition
Tacitus and Josephus
By "external" I mean near contemporary references by writers outside the Judeo-Christian tradition
