Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c15.16

c15.16

Still it was difficult to make material changes which would not be inconsistent with statements elsewhere, and as they lacked the historical sense they could hardly accomplish that, and so their errors can be detected. Many instances of defects and mistakes have been noticed in the preceding chapters, and only two need be cited here as illustrations. As regards defects, there is the gap in the Paurava pedigree between Taṃsu and Duṣyanta: the text in the oldest and best Puranas remains confused, and it is the later compositions that attempt to reconstruct the descent. As regards mistakes, the fact that the Rigveda, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra connect ‘Viśvāmitra’ with the Bharatas in no way disturbed the best Puranas in their derivation of the Kānyakubja dynasty from Āyu’s son Amāvasu; and the derivation of it from Bharata’s descendant Ajamīḍha was manifestly known to be doubtful, because the Brahma and Harivaṃśa, though they give it, give also the true version, and none of the other Puranas adopted it except the late Agni: so that mistaken post-Vedic interpretation was powerless to overthrow the kṣatriya tradition, and even the late brahmanical Bhāgavata was unmoved by it.