The problem of the definition of myth in analysis must be clearly distinguished from the problem of interpretation of myth, with which it is often confused. A definition of myth simply permits and allows an analysis of myth (through the identification of the object named ‘myth’). However, for many years, works on myth do not effectively describe how to identify or recognize myth. Instead, authors use myths as a support or proof to their particular interpretations. The first question of what is myth (and thus how myths should be identified) is postponed as secondary, as if the answer would appear only after the particular interpretation has been confirmed. Here is where the relevance of asking again the question of ‘what is myth’ should start to become clear. Then, our work is concerned with the definitions of myth in myth analysis, but not with the problem of interpretation of myth. From the beginning it must be understood that this work does not intend to explain, justify, or unravel any particular myth, or its meanings, but it is solely preoccupied with the questions of ‘what is myth,’ and thus with ‘how to identify myth. The following content will focus on presenting the problem of the definition of myth, and thus gives an example as evidence. In other words, this work will try to prove the problem of the definition of myth while positing back the question of definition to the center of a discussion on myth.
目次
Abstract i Index ii Chapter I: Introduction 1 Chapter II: The Problem of a definition of myth 15 Chapter III: Myth in Buddhist Studies 44 Chapter IV: ‘What is myth doing here?’ The problem of myth in the Mahāsudassana Sutta 62 Chapter V: Outline for a new definition of myth 91 Chapter VI: Conclusions 134 Abbreviations 138 Bibliography 139
