Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c10.13

c10.13

The contrast between the stories about Triśaṅku, Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra shows clearly that there were two classes of tradition, the brahmanic and the kṣatriya (see p. 6). This is only what might be naturally expected. This distinction in tradition, brahmanic and kṣatriya, is very important and may be paralleled by the difference between legends of saints and tales of chivalry. Brahmanic tradition speaks from the brahmanical standpoint, describes events and expresses feelings as they would appear to brahmans, illustrates brahmanical ideas, maintains and inculcates the dignity, sanctity, supremacy and even superhuman character of brahmans, enunciates brahmanical doctrines and advocates whatever subserved the interests of brahmans;⁶ often enforcing the moral by means of marvellous incidents, that not seldom are made up of absurd and utterly impossible details. It often introduces kings, because kings were their chief patrons, yet even so the brahmans’ dignity is never forgotten. Kṣatriya tradition, on the other hand, speaks from the kṣatriya standpoint, describes events and expresses feelings as they would appear to kṣatriyas, is concerned chiefly with kings and heroes and their great deeds, and displays the ideas and code of honour of kṣatriyas. It notices rishis who came into contact with kings, but otherwise is not much concerned with the life and thoughts of rishis. Kṣatriya tales do often indulge in the marvellous, but their marvels are generally mere exaggeration without any didactic purpose; and kṣatriya tradition, even when magnifying the glory of kings, does not disparage brahmans but acknowledges their character and position, though not in the excessive terms often employed in brahmanic tales. Kṣatriya genealogies are of necessity of kṣatriya origin.