what is Dharmik Itihasa

In Dharmic traditions, accounts of  the past are not made throwww.bhrigupandit.comugh either mith or history exclusively. Rather these categories are replaced by itihasa, which combine  purvapaksha (the past narrative )with the words of  advice regarding all aspects of life.

Truth and nor mere history is the concern of itihasa. Itihasa together with the narrative text known as Puranas, combine history and myth, and multiple perspectives make them more open than history. Truth is not dependent on history, rather history is a manifestaion of it. The dharmic relation  between history and myth is thus not at all comparable to the Western relation between truth and fiction.

Parables abound the dharmic scriptures, too, but these inspire by the lesson they teach and not by claims of being the exact records of historical events Hindus participating in rituals in temples do , for the more part, fellow a received codified tradition, and minority might believe  in the narratives they celebrate as literally having happned.

Most Hindus tend to view the historical events in their traditions in a fluid manner.History after all recurs in endless time cycles. however Hindus recognize that history can be valuable to the biginners on the spiritual journey (i.e. in a stage which they will , in time supersede). the Dharma practitioner who studies itihasa  explicitly aspires to bring about a change within, emphasizing the virtues illustrated in the narratives and not historical facts. Lord Rama and Lord Krishana are embodiments of bhavas (attitudes) , and their historical significance is superseded by the values they convey.

Itihasa is also fundamentally pluralistic: there are usally a variety of the versions. remodelled account or new version of a narrative  does not nullify all others. there is no burning of old books or erase past versions. what gets rejected is simply ignored , possibly to be revived or revised at a later time when it might again become contextually relevant. Hence in India one finds ancient customs coexisting with those from later periods. An open past serves as a creative  resource for the future generations, who might want to explore the roads not taken. The Western unfolding of history , oth e other hand , does not have room for parallel streams, finding them threatening and hence believing  that it is safer to display them in a museums (i.e. not living traditionsbut as dead ones) But collasping all variations in to a mono-history only produces a mono-culture. such a lack of understanding and insight causes itisahas to get misconstrued as myth vis-a-vis some plutative reality.

The west demands that its myths be historicized so that they may be claimed as true. India do not carry the burden history-centrism and are under  no pressure to present their myth as history.

There are multiple stakeholders who compete for their respective versions of history to prevail. power is always  at work in the construction of history (history is written by victors, as the popular adage goes.) More often than not, history is arbitrary in the terms of what is included and what is not, what is emphasized, whose point of view is privileged, apparatus and elaborate process have evolved to present history, and transformation of Western myths into fact remains a major preoccupation of the western humanities. (by Rajive malhotra)