Concise Oxford Dictionary  defines a myth as  " a traditional narrative usually involving supernatural or imaginary
persons and often embodying popular ideas or natural or social phenomena etc.". This definition is of wide scope and can
include many legends and folklores of numerous cultures. The most interesting thing about myths is that they all survived
hundreds or thousands of years and some still contain valuable ideas about living, morals, Universe, origin of life, etc. Now
they are considered as human heritages !  
                   

                
                   
In the beginning they were simply handed down orally from one generation to next  through stories and songs.
When languages developed, they  were worded or recorded. Perhaps, all cultures and religions would have a 'creation-myth',
myths on life-after-death, immortality ,good-bad duality, wisdom etc. This shows that myths originated to satisfy common or
popular quests about the unknowns and were influenced by,  then-prevailing intelligence and beliefs. Stories of Adam and
Eve, heaven, hell, dev-asur fights and ammrith, Ananse Kokrofu etc. are some examples. Some of the old myths might seem
to be nonsense to many modern minds. ( Of course  it is true that without bothering about myths, one can carry on with one's
daily activities now.). The important point to be remembered is that myths are linked strongly with cultures wherein they
formed originally. Outside these cultures, they can seem to be of no sense or value. Outsiders should try to study myths with
a biasless(culturally) mind to understand their relevant meanings.


                   Thinking objectively, where do myths stand in the hierarchy of different branches of learning?  Literatures on
different subjects can be listed in order of objectivity as, (1) natural sciences, (2) engineering sciences or technologies, (3)
social sciences or humanities like politics, history etc., (4) branches of art like music, stories, poetry, dance, painting etc., (5)
branches dealing with beliefs, myths, rituals etc. Take the first group natural sciences. Scientific studies are 100% objective,




     




in the sense, based on one's own seeing, hearing, observations, experiments etc. (Science students are supposed  to do
experiments and verify the things they gather from teachers, books etc. to make their minds confirmed and consolidated).
Similarly are engineering sciences. When it comes to humanities, the situation changes.  There are different philosophies,  
ideologies and political parties and hence come freedoms of conscience,expression, ideology etc. For example, views on
wealth, freedom, government etc. are very diffrent among liberals and communists. Otherwise subjectivity becomes
unavoidable  and is legalised. As far as the roles of music, stories, drama etc. are concerned, 'anybody can write on anything,
sing or act as they like'. Experiences of the readers and spectators are personal and depend on their non-objective
(emotional, cultural, religious etc.) considerations or faculties also. This regime of experiences and learnings are subjective.
When it comes to the last group, beliefs, rituals, myths etc., the regime is 'non-rational' or non-objective in many ways (in the
sense based on beliefs, rituals, myths and associated traditions). Human societies permitted and still permit, beliefs and
belief-based organizations as part of ordinary life and cultures. Since they are non-rational at the core, nobody is expected to
force any belief or ritual on anybody. Ideally beliefs and rituals should be from a person's own conviction and could be helpful  
to consolidate and discipline oneself. If big groups (e.g., religious communities) are organized around beliefs and rituals,
with time and indiscipline, they would tend towards immorality and irrationality as seen in many places now.   (Click here for  
more on truth and beliefs)
. So if you can not find any sense in some beliefs, rituals or myths, simply reject them and try to find
out other meaningful 'views and ways'  of life.  (Of course, there are smooth ways of adopting new ' views and ways' ).  


                   As an example to understand the various aspects of a myth, consider the myth of Gaia, a relevant one in the
context of global warming. Gaia is the Greek name for ' mother Earth'  and this belief or concept about Earth as  'mother of all '
or goddess of Earth is prevalent in many cultures. The theory  of Gaia (Gaia - a new look at life on Earth  by James Lovelock  
Oxford University Press, 148pp) presenting Earth as a vast self-regulating organism, capable of regulating climate and biota
in its multitude is widely discussed now.  Understanding the  theory of Gaia is difficult, it needs a wide view to relate things
like animals, plants, ecology, geology, climate, self-regulation, pollution etc. And, when one goes high, the view is aerial and
panoramic,  many small or micro-features would not be discernible at all. For example, a city is seen only as a small yellow
or red area in satellite photographs.  


                   One should go back to primitive cultures to understand Gaia well. What were the situations which existed when
humans deified gods and goddesses and worshipped forces of nature? Following are a few; (1) nature or Earth provides
everything  for all, (2) fear of storms, lightning and thunder, rivers, mountains etc., (3) beliefs in magic, spirits, ghosts, heaven,
hell etc., (4) tightly united communal or cultist living ways to overcome ignorance and fear. (No sciences, technologies, and arts,
only some folklores, myths, beliefs etc.). In these background situations of ignorance,fear, awe and beliefs, the primitive people
naturally deified Earth as a goddess; the provider for all, benevolent and frightening, mother of all - good and bad, weak and strong
-  as Gaia in Greek, as Pachamama by pre-Incans, as Caillech in Scottish  and as Obatala by Africans. The list can go long if other
cultures are included. It was the primitive way of solving the problems of ignorance, fear and  weaknesses. Now also there exist
 cults and cultures with similar beliefs and myths. That was fully okay, as seen now. The important thing to take note is that they
solved their problems and progressed without destroying environments and global temperature equilibrium. What is the present
state of humanity?     


                   Now as a modern scientist sees, what are the present physical realities about the Earth? Following is not the full
list; (1) the only planet known to have living beings like plants and animals for hundreds of millions of years, (2) hundreds of
ecosystems of various types from deserts to sea floor, (3) all ecosystems survive with inputs(e.g., Sun's energy, rains) and
outputs(e.g., foods, biomass), (4) humans evolved to be at the top of the pyramid of evolution with qualities hitherto
ununderstood, (5) nature provides for all necessities of life directly in forests and mainly or indirectly in cities, (6) ignorance,
bias, greed, chaos etc. prevail or dominate in many regimes of human activities and (7) unbalanced increase in populations
and pollutions threaten numerous species of animals and plants with unpredictable consequences to atmosphere,
lithosphere and hydrosphere. In this background of ignorance, outdated beliefs, imbalances and fear, humans are searching
for solutions and new theories to tide over the big crisis. Is this not the right time to re-evaluate old 'concepts' like Gaia and to
update ' what is relevant and useful' ? The Gaia theory tries exactly this, by  developing a multi-disciplinary scientific model of  
life, evolution,ecosystems,geochemistry etc. When specialisation leads to water-tight compartments and alienation,
multi-disciplinary studies which are panoramic in view become a necessity. Many scientists reject this theory  calling it  'bad
science', 'religious thinking' and metaphorical musings. It was named musingly  'Gaia'  by the novelist  William Golding (see
preface of Gaia, by James Lovelock  Oxford University Press).  


                    Consider another myth, that of dev-asur fights and ammrith. What is the way in which a modern mind should
interpret this myth? Devs are the people of establishments or established groups with some common beliefs, rituals and
traditions. Theirs is the dominant social group. Asurs are the non-organized people,  for reasons of lack of land or wealth,
establishments, power etc. There is a continuing struggle or fight between these two groups on many things like wealth and
power, most fundamentally on  ammrith. So is it not 'knowledge'  or wisdom , this ammrith is meant to be? Hence dev-asur
fights, good-bad struggles and  yin-yang conflicts point to the most fundamental aspect of  growing or active cultures or
national systems, at present also.                                               



                                                                                                                                                                                    Site  Map             Home  


        
MYTHS ?