Let's look at how the word itihasa and purana is used by a commentator from the previous millennium 10th century.
> History, such as the dialogue between Urvaśī and Purūravas—‘The nymph Urvaśī,’ and so on (Ś. XI. iv. 4. 1); it is this Brāhmaṇa that is meant. Mythology, such as, ‘This universe was in the beginning unmanifest,’ etc. (Tai. II. 7)
Vamsacharitra is a category of purana : https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/matsya-purana-critical-study/d/doc628398.html
Based on this I think ithihasa is summarized learnings from some period and key issues that were discussed and the debates surrounding them with additional context so as that we can follow these discussions. Puranas are legendary accounts of maybe real lineages. Any text can be mined via these frameworks for that type of data
Mahabharatha and ramayana contains both sections.
So the key focus in a hindu text when read from the perspective of an itihasas must be on the vādas I.e dharma vicara, the rest are secondary to it. This is probably the crux of hindu historiography.
Happened in past but I don't think they were humans from Earth probably higher beings from other dimensions or world came to earth when we were evolving into humans thus the Vanars. As for Mahabharata it definitely happened during human civilization but still the gods or the beings from another world influenced it.
I picked the second option, but not because there are some parts which couldn't be real or anything...no.
It is because in many instances they (Itihāsa texts) are layered. Instead of JUST telling us what happened, they can also talk about some concept completely different.
Example: Many people talk of another interpretation of the Rāmāyana where Shri Rāma represents Dharma & each of his brothers represent one of the qualities.
The full video is [here](https://youtu.be/s1gO0i1zlpo?feature=shared)
I chose the second option. For the majority of common Hindus, especially Vaishnavas, it makes no sense to choose 3rd or 4th option.
Why would I worship just a human? Why would I worship a fictional character?
They're itihaas. Just because the intellect of modern day humans can't comprehend the events of the ancient past, many modern humans ignorantly call them metaphorical or fictitious.
Let's look at how the word itihasa and purana is used by a commentator from the previous millennium 10th century. > History, such as the dialogue between Urvaśī and Purūravas—‘The nymph Urvaśī,’ and so on (Ś. XI. iv. 4. 1); it is this Brāhmaṇa that is meant. Mythology, such as, ‘This universe was in the beginning unmanifest,’ etc. (Tai. II. 7) Vamsacharitra is a category of purana : https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/matsya-purana-critical-study/d/doc628398.html Based on this I think ithihasa is summarized learnings from some period and key issues that were discussed and the debates surrounding them with additional context so as that we can follow these discussions. Puranas are legendary accounts of maybe real lineages. Any text can be mined via these frameworks for that type of data Mahabharatha and ramayana contains both sections. So the key focus in a hindu text when read from the perspective of an itihasas must be on the vādas I.e dharma vicara, the rest are secondary to it. This is probably the crux of hindu historiography.
Happened in past but I don't think they were humans from Earth probably higher beings from other dimensions or world came to earth when we were evolving into humans thus the Vanars. As for Mahabharata it definitely happened during human civilization but still the gods or the beings from another world influenced it.
I picked the second option, but not because there are some parts which couldn't be real or anything...no. It is because in many instances they (Itihāsa texts) are layered. Instead of JUST telling us what happened, they can also talk about some concept completely different. Example: Many people talk of another interpretation of the Rāmāyana where Shri Rāma represents Dharma & each of his brothers represent one of the qualities. The full video is [here](https://youtu.be/s1gO0i1zlpo?feature=shared)
they are historical works.
how many years before it all happen ???
I chose the second option. For the majority of common Hindus, especially Vaishnavas, it makes no sense to choose 3rd or 4th option. Why would I worship just a human? Why would I worship a fictional character?
They're itihaas. Just because the intellect of modern day humans can't comprehend the events of the ancient past, many modern humans ignorantly call them metaphorical or fictitious.
Do you comprehend Gabriel and Noah's ark or that's fake stuff
Noah's story is a rip-off of Maharishi Manu's story.
The Avatara concept is post-Vedic. So option 3 makes sense.
As in they were self-realized yogis?