Itihasa – Victim of a Paradigm Imposed

Image Credit: Grok.com

This essay is based primarily on Rajiv Malhotra’s exposition [1] on this subject. This write-up, for most part, repeats, rephrases and reinforces his idea.

I.   The Background

Hindus have been on the defensive regarding their ancient past, popularly referred to as ‘Hindu mythology’. The oceanic body of prehistoric Hindu text, unparalleled by far in its sheer volume, breadth and scope, is usually dismissed as fabled, fantastic and fictional, despite the detailed and meticulous records of time and places these texts carry. It is not unusual to ridicule them with questions like, “Do you really believe a monkey flew hundreds of miles over the ocean?”, “How could there be a person with ten heads and twenty arms?”, “Do you mean there’s a God with an elephant’s head?”, etc. The average Hindu not having convincing answers to the questions, and therefore to the ridicule, chooses best to avoid the subject. It is this cynicism and cognitive dissonance regarding their past that leads to the identity crisis, so rampant among the Hindus.

Let us understand the issue in some detail.

II. History and Mythology – the Western Framework

For the retelling of past events and building of social narratives, the West has two separate cut-and-dried categories – history and mythology. The former is, in principle, based on facts, while the latter is broadly fiction and fantasy. While history is respected, the attitude towards mythology is generally dismissive.

It is important to note that this distinction is most significant in the Western framework, since the Abrahamic faiths – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are based entirely upon their [claimed] histories. It might come as a surprise to the average Hindu, but these systems are perilously perched on a few historical claims, which if disproved, will shatter the whole edifice [2]. For instance, Christianity’s mainstay is that God uniquely intervened in history [3] to send his only son, Jesus Christ, born of a virgin mother. This is a unique historical event, and if falsified [4], it would bring down the whole Christian faith. Similarly, Islam claims that the Qu’ran was revealed exclusively to Prophet Muhammad, a unique historical event that has no parallel in time, past or future. If this claim is falsified, the whole Islamic faith loses legitimacy. It is therefore of paramount importance for these Western systems to maintain the authenticity of their claimed histories.

As a corollary, mythology carries a strong connotation of inauthenticity and fiction and arouses a sense of insecurity and threat if, for instance, the core Christian beliefs are referred to as such. The Western institutions, including academia and media, invariably regard these beliefs as historically factual in nature, and would never refer to them as mythological, on account of the same fear. The history-mythology categorization is thus of existential import in the Western context.

III.    Historicity and Hinduism

Hinduism does not depend on the historicity of its characters and events in the same way as the Abrahamic faiths do. The reason is that the Hindu principles are enshrined in the Veda, which are character-agnostic. The other texts which are based on divine characters (eg, Ramayana, Shrimadbhagwatam, etc.) are simply manifestation and dramatisation of the Vedic principles – no Divine character can violate Vedic principles [5]. So, the characters themselves, in a way, derive legitimacy from the principles, and do not independently instill legitimacy in the system themselves. Historicity – or the lack of it – of any Hindu event or character, regardless of their divinity, is thus immaterial for Hinduism’s existence. A Hindu may not believe in the historicity of any Hindu character and still be a legitimate Hindu. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Hindu and the Abrahamic paradigms.

However, given the dominance of Western Universalism [6], Hindus, like many other colonised peoples, have unfortunately adopted this Western history-mythology framework, and spontaneously try to force-fit their own Hindu past within this framework. Furthermore, we have accepted stories of our ancient past as mythological, inadvertently depriving them of their legitimacy and truth. It is this internalisation of the Western paradigm against which we judge our stories that leads to our own cynicism.

In order to address the malady, one needs to understand how the past is recounted within the Hindu paradigm.

IV.    Itihasa [7]

In the Hindu paradigm, past stories are told through its own literary genre called Itihasa [8]. Itihasa is erroneously and reductively mistranslated as history, while at the same time connoted as mythology. It is notable however that it does not map with either; it is a unique concept and does not have an equivalent term in the English language. Itihasa is comprised of two of India’s most popular stories from the past: Ramayana and Mahabharata. It will be safe to say that the two have defined the fundamental values of the society and together constitute the Indian grand narrative.

Purpose of Itihasa

The first important difference between itihasa and history is that their purposes are different. While history chronicles an accurate account of past events, Itihasa has the larger purpose of teaching the principles of dharma in ways that they could be readily absorbed by the common folk. For Itihasa, the historicity of events and characters contained in the stories are simply means to an end and not and end in itself [9]. The success of the itihasa model can be gauged by the fact that not only are the Itihasa texts overwhelmingly more popular than the Veda-s themselves [10], but it is the former that have successfully ingrained in the society the core dharmic tenets and values, more than any other body of Hindu texts.

History’s Fact vs Itihasa’s Truth

There is an important philosophical distinction between itihasa and history: while history concerns itself with fact, itihasa concerns itself with truth [11]. A fact is a manifestation of truth [12] in space and time and the former must abide by the latter. Truth is the principle while fact is a mere vehicle for its expression. Fact is finite while truth is infinite; no single fact, or its multitude, can fully manifest the truth.

Let us take the example of the famed fable in science: Newton was inspired to formulate his theory of gravitation by watching the fall of an apple from a tree. The falling of the apple is a fact but the principle of gravity – based on which the apple fell – is the underlying truth. Notably, the fact does not affect the truth, while the truth forms the very basis of the fact. The fact could vary – for instance, it could very well have been an orange or a pineapple that had fallen, instead of the apple – but the truth of gravitation would remain unaltered. Even if the fact was absent – that nothing had fallen from the tree on that fateful day – the truth of gravity would be blissfully unaffected.

The same concept applies to itihasa. The historical facts captured in the epics only express the truth of the dharmic principles – while the itihasa facts are subservient to the dharmic truths, the latter is undisturbed by the authenticity of the former. What does it matter if the godly Ramachandra of Ayodhya ever existed or if he was the Divine incarnate? What if he was a figment of Valmiki’s imagination? The truth of the goodness of vairagya [13], tyaga [14], maryada [15], shaurya [16], and other principles that he is reported to have evinced remains unscathed. What if Ravana had ten heads or five or if he was headless? The truth of evil as comprised by abhimana [17], asakti [18], krodha [19], kaama [20], and other of his qualities is still valid. The Sitas and the Krishnas, the Shivas and the Kalis inspire through truth; the fact of their historicity or its lack being immaterial.

Poetic nature of itihasa

Unlike history which is prosaic, itihasa is poetic in nature and conspicuously takes poetic liberties and employs poetic devices. The composers of the itihasa epics deeply understood human nature and brilliantly fashioned these epics to suit the reader’s taste and to conduce to their spontaneous uptake. The epics are thus an elaborate, ornate and often dramatized, exaggerated and symbolic account of historical events [21], focussed purely on their singular purpose of imparting dharmic principles in easy-to-grasp ways. It is this poetic feature of itihasa – appealing to human taste and sensibilities – that is behind its success; for centuries – nay, millennia – and despite repetitive narrations, the epics fail to lose their sheen [22] and never miss to arouse goose-pimples.

Let us understand it through an analogy. Let us say a couple is having a romantic dinner in a garden restaurant. To capture the memorable moment, they ask a photographer to take a picture – the photograph thus produced is a factual 2D snapshot of this rendezvous. Now, let us say that instead of the photographer, the couple had employed the services of a painter. Unlike the photographer, the painter would have the luxury of adding and subtracting artistic elements. For instance, in order to capture the romance, the painter could subtly add flowers and butterflies, a lighted candle, a rainbow far away in the horizon. He could paint the sky in hues of purple. He could remove the redundant waiter or cover the patch of dried grass. As an expression of romance, the painting would thus fare much better than the photograph. The added richness in the painting represents the truth of the romance more effectively than the fact of photograph was able to achieve. The painting, despite its non-factual elements, conveys the truth of the mood and sublimeness of the moment, which the photograph, limited by fact, fails to. The photograph captures the tangible fact – limited and inadequate, while the painting captures also the intangible truth – in all its glory.

History is like the photograph, restricted by fact, while itihasa is like the painting, prodigally expressing the truth of dharma. Valmiki and Vyasa were poets, more than historians, who used historical facts as the core, the kernel of their stories, while they embellished and adorned them with their poetic mastery. Just like the painter above, the matchless poets added and subtracted elements to bring out the truth more effectively, more richly and more fully. Perhaps, Rama did not utter the words that Valmiki reported when he left for the vanavasa. How noble and utile then that Valmiki should give expression to Rama’s feelings and emotions in those beautiful verses! How so clever that Sita is portrayed as prettier than all the apsaras of the swarga loka, giving external expression to her unmatched inner beauty!

Itihasa is both a work of history and also a work of art. But above all, it is a work of truth and dharma, because of which it is universally appealing, time-honoured and time-defying.

V.  Pragmatic Takeaway

Understanding itihasa, especially vis-à-vis the Western history-myth framework, should give confidence to the Hindu, that his tradition has something precious which other traditions lack. It should also be clear that trying to map itihasa on to the Western framework will invariably be detrimental to his position. Rather the Western categories should be mapped on to itihasa to show their inadequacy, within the Hindu paradigm.

Here are two example questions that may place the Hindu on the defensive. Given are possible answers based on the discussion above.

Is Rama a historical figure? How do you explain the multiple versions of Ramayana?

“Yes, Rama is a historical figure, given the detailed and consistent account we find of him. However, this question is not too pertinent in the dharmic worldview, since it is his principles rather than his historicity that counts. Even if Rama never lived, his principles remain and that is what is important. To me, Rama is, for all intents and purposes, the embodiment of the noble dharmic principles – maryada, tyaga, etc. – as depicted in Valmiki’s Ramayana.

“The multiple versions of Ramayana too is not problematic for the same reasons – most espouse the same dharmic principles even if the stories vary slightly, which is anyway reasonable given the astronomical time gaps we are dealing in.”

Do you believe a monkey flew over the sea?

“It might be symbolic and/or exaggerated. The purpose of itihasa is to impart dharmic principles to the layperson. To that end and being works of poetry, itihasa is at the liberty to use poetic devices like hyperbole and metaphors. Unlike the Christian who believes Jesus literally walked on water and that he converted water into wine or the Muslim who claims their prophet actually travelled on a winged horse to the heavens, the Hindu is content to accede that Hanumana’s flight over the sea might carry a symbolic significance rather than a literal one. It does not problematise his worldview.

“By the way, this excessive focus on the literal word rather than the intended message reminds one of a small baby, who when pointed to look at the Moon, is persistently stuck staring at the pointing finger, unmindful of the marvel and the beauty it is missing.”

The Hindu’s situation is akin to one having a strong legal case but a poor lawyer. The reason is that the problem exists at the deeper level of paradigms – we have adopted the Western paradigm and are constantly trying to defend the Hindu position within that paradigm. Once we reclaim our own Hindu paradigm, things will automatically start to fall in place.

_________________

[1]      Read Rajiv Malhotra’s Being Different – an Indian Challenge to Western Universalism and also watch his video here.

[2]     Swami Vivekananda was perhaps the first to observe this feature of the Abrahamic faiths: “All the other religions have been built round the life of what they think [is] a historical man; and what they think [is] the strength of religion is really the weakness, for disprove the historicity of the man and the whole fabric tumbles to ground. Half the lives of these great founders of religions have been broken into pieces, and the other half doubted very seriously. As such, every truth that had its sanction only in their words vanishes into air.”

Rajiv Malhotra calls this feature of the Abrahamic religions as ‘history-centrism’: “In the Judeo-Christian traditions, revelation comes ‘from above.’ It is initiated by God, and its content is strictly God-given. Human receptiveness is required, but this alone is insufficient. God is transcendent and must personally intervene in history from without in order for human beings to discern the truth. The bedrock of such religions is this historical event. This leads to an obsession with compiling and studying the historical details of such interventions and makes them what I call history-centric.”

[3]    Cf. Nicene Creed. This feature of unique historical intervention, by the way, is inadmissible by science, which asserts all natural laws to be consistently and universally repeatable, as long as same conditions are met. It is also in contradiction to our own mundane experience.

[4]    Given the framework of the Abrahamic religions, falsifiability – which is one of the basic conditions for scientific enquiry and scientific method – is simply not possible.

[5]     Swami Vivekananda elaborates it beautifully: “But the truths of our religion, although we have persons by the score, do not depend upon them. The glory of Krishna is not that he was Krishna, but that he was the great teacher of Vedanta. If he had not been so, his name would have died out of India in the same way as the name of Buddha has done. Thus our allegiance is to the principles always, and not to the persons. Persons are but the embodiments, the illustrations of the principles. If the principles are there, the persons will come by the thousands and millions. If the principle is safe, persons like Buddha will be born by the hundreds and thousands. But if the principle is lost and forgotten and the whole of national life tries to cling round a so-called historical person, woe unto that religion, danger unto that religion! Ours is the only religion that does not depend on a person or persons; it is based upon principles. At the same time there is room for millions of persons. There is ample ground for introducing persons, but each one of them must be an illustration of the principles.”

[6]    A mindset that Western experiences, contexts, values, and perspectives are universally applicable and should be adopted by all cultures

[7]    Genre of Hindu literature presenting historical accounts through a dharmic lens; comprises the epic poems Ramayana and Mahabharata

[8]   Another body of texts called Purana is not being discussed here, which is slightly different from itihasa. However, all points being made in relation to the latter apply to the former as well.

[9]    Excessive emphasis on historicity may even be irritating to the informed Hindu, since to him, it has only a limited remit. Swami Vivekananda’s words here betray such irritation: “What difference does it make to you whether Jesus Christ lived at a certain time or not? What has it to do with you that Moses saw God in the burning bush? The fact that Moses saw God in the burning bush does not constitute your seeing Him, does it? If it does, then the fact that Moses ate is enough for you; you ought to stop eating. One is just as sensible as the other. Records of great spiritual men of the past do us no good whatever except that they urge us onward to do the same, to experience religion ourselves. Whatever Christ or Moses or anybody else did does not help us in the least, except to urge us on.”

[10]     Hardly a negligible fraction of Hindus have actually read the Veda-s; while it would be difficult to find a Hindu, who is not conversant with the two Itihasa epics.

The philosophical sections of the Veda-s – the Upanishad-s – could be seen as raw nutrients, inedible to most, while the itihasa texts could be seen as delicious food comprising the Upanishadic nutrients. Of course, the common folk would invariably prefer to consume that latter, rather than the former.

[11]    Rajiv Malhotra observes thus: “Truth and not mere history is the concern of itihasa. …Truth is not dependent on history; rather, history is a manifestation of it.”

[12]    As an aside, while the fact usually represents the truth, if ingeniously used, it may well contradict the latter. For instance, an uncharacteristically ugly picture of pretty girl (for instance while she is sneezing) – in such a case, the fact will not represent but contradict the truth. This strategy – citing improbable facts which are unrepresentative of truth and/or dismissing probable facts representative of truth as unrepresentative – is often employed in setting false social narratives.

[13]   Freedom from attachment to objects of the phenomenal world

[14]   Selfless renunciation

[15]    Restraint, the thin line separating the prudent and the imprudent

[16]    Valour

[17]   Egoistic pride

[18]   Selfish attachment to objects of the phenomenal world

[19]   Anger

[20]    Lustfulness

[21]   The book Sanskrit Non-Translatables by Rajiv Malhotra and Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji explains that itihasa is comprised of three units: iti, which means ‘thus’, ha, which means ‘was’ and asa, which means ‘expansion’. Itihasa thus means presentation of historical account with a touch of elaboration and expansion.

[22]   The Ramayana (with all its variants) remains among the most popular of all stories in the world.

When I was in France, I was acquainted with a Pakistani college-mate. I was astonished to learn from him how all the streets and public places in Pakistan would be absolutely deserted on Sunday mornings while everyone would be surreptitiously watching Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayana on TV. Just think of the natural appeal of the epic, that even the staunch and sworn enemies of the Hindu tradition could not resist it!