Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c6: Chapter I. General Survey of Ancient Indian Historical Tradition

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c6

Language
English

Chapter I. General Survey of Ancient Indian Historical Tradition

c6.2

यो विद्याच्चतुरो वेदान्साङ्गोपनिषदो द्विजः । न चेत्पुराणं संविद्यात्तैव स स्याद्विचक्षणः ॥ इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत् । बिभेत्यल्पश्रुताद्वेदो मामयं प्रहरिष्यति ॥¹

c6.3

¹ Vā 1, 200-1. Pad v, 2, 50-2. Śiv v, 1, 35. MBh has the two verses separately, the first (modified) in i, 2, 645, and the second in i, 1, 260.

c6.4

The brahman, who may know the four Vedas with the Aṅgas and Upaniṣads, should not really be (regarded as) having attained proficiency, if he should not thoroughly know the Purāṇa. He should reinforce the Veda with the Itihāsa and Purāṇa. The Veda is afraid of him who is deficient in tradition,² (thinking) ‘he will do me hurt’.

c6.5

² Śruta here means ‘tradition’, see chap. II.

c6.6

Our knowledge of the most ancient times in India rests mainly on tradition. We know from the evidence of language that the Aryans entered India very early, and established themselves ultimately throughout North India and in the north-west of the Dekhan, so that the history of those times is bound up closely with the Aryan conquest. The Purāṇas, the Mahābhārata and in a minor degree the Rāmāyaṇa profess to give accounts from tradition about the earliest occurrences. The Vedas, the Brāhmaṇas and other brahmanic literature supply information also. The oldest of these, the Ṛigveda, contains historical allusions, of which some record contemporary persons and events, but more refer to bygone times and persons and are obviously based on tradition. Almost all the information therefore comes from tradition.

c6.7

Ancient India has bequeathed to us no historical works. ‘History is the one weak spot in Indian literature. It is, in fact, non-existent. The total lack of the historical sense is so characteristic, that the whole course of Sanskrit literature is darkened by the shadow of this defect, suffering as it does from an entire absence of exact chronology.’¹ This is especially true of the brahmanic literature, for it has been truly said, ‘That the Vedic texts, the Saṃhitās and the Brāhmaṇas, are not books of historical purpose is notorious,’ nor do they deal with history.²

c6.8

¹ Macdonell, *Sanskrit Literature*, p. 10.

c6.9

² Professor Keith, JRAS, 1914, pp. 739, 1031 note; 1915, p. 143 note.

c6.10

The evidence in the Rigveda, whether contemporary notices or matter concerning the past borrowed from tradition, consists of statements more or less isolated; they are merely allusions and make up no connected account. Even the contemporary notices, though having all the trustworthiness of first-hand evidence, yet fix little or nothing definitely of themselves, because they have no certain chronological setting with reference to other events. The same remarks hold good for the brahmanical literature later than the Rigveda. This may be illustrated by the contemporary information about king Sudās in the Rigveda.

c6.11

It tells us of his battle with the ten kings, but that event cannot be assigned to any definite time unless we know when he lived; and there is the widest difference, whether it took place (as scholars believe at present) when the Aryans were in the Panjab conquering their way into India, and was a battle between them and the hostile races who opposed their eastward advance; or whether it took place (as tradition indicates) long after the Aryans had established themselves in N. India, and was a battle between Sudāsa (Sudās), king of North Pañcāla, and other Aryan and non-Aryan kings who opposed his westward conquests. There is nothing in the Rigveda to fix his position chronologically, but there are plain statements in the genealogies and tradition which assign him a definite place in the scheme of Aryan expansion in North India.

c6.12

Even contemporary historical notices in the Rigveda therefore remain chronologically vague, and by themselves yield little information that can be co-ordinated for historical purposes. Statements of an historical kind in the Vedic literature become serviceable, if they can be linked up with other statements from elsewhere, and that can be only from tradition. It is tradition that gives many of them a chronological position; hence the soundness and force of the counsel given in the verses prefixed to this chapter are manifest. Tradition therefore becomes all-important. It is the only resource, since historical works are wanting, and is not an untrustworthy guide. In ancient times men knew perfectly well the difference between truth and falsehood, as abundant proverbs and sayings show. It was natural therefore that they should discriminate what was true and preserve it; and historical tradition must be considered in this light. This will be noticed farther on.

c6.13

The Aryans could not have established themselves in India without long and arduous warfare. Among the hostile races who possessed the country before them were not only rude tribes but also communities in a higher state of civilization (chapter XXV). The Aryans not only subdued them, but also gradually cleared much of the country of the forests which occupied a large portion of its surface, so as to render it fit for themselves, their cattle and their cultivation.

c6.14

Their wars, their conquests and the founding of new kingdoms all implied that there were victorious kings, whose lineage and exploits would have been sung in many a kṣatriya ballad.¹ With their territorial expansion their religion naturally extended its sphere. Political supremacy fostered religious ascendancy, and rishis² and munis, protected and favoured by royal power and Aryan prestige, spread and propagated their doctrines and observances, not only in the countries conquered, but also in the surrounding regions beyond the actual Aryan sway. Thus they gradually brought the alien peoples and tribes under the influence of Aryan beliefs and customs. This process has prevailed to the present day, and along with it another process must have been going on also, which likewise has continued to the present day, namely, the Aryans met with religious practices and beliefs among the peoples whom they ruled over or came into lasting contact with, and have assimilated some of them gradually, thus modifying their own religion to a certain extent.

c6.15

¹ So MBh i, 1, 220-5 (10 verses).

c6.16

² This word is Anglicized throughout.

c6.17

Their victorious career must have given rise to abundant tradition of all kinds, warlike, religious and peaceful, and tradition must have grown with their expansion and the length of their occupation. Naturally it was impossible to remember all the accumulated traditions, much dropped out, and only what was important or specially interesting to kings, priests and people was preserved. Consequently the principal matters that would have survived would be (speaking generally) the genealogies of great dynasties, ballads and stories about famous kings and eminent rishis, and accounts of the chief popular religious beliefs and observances. Kings and rishis therefore were the prominent figures, and it is mainly with them that ancient traditions deal.

c6.18

There was, however, the widest difference between kings and rishis. Kings occupied settled countries and towns. The rishis were not confined to any place, but wandered into woods and hills and wilds to practise asceticism and a religious life in order to form and enhance their sacred character. The conditions of a king’s life were fixed. The rishi was independent; spiritual eminence being his aim, he sought out when young the teaching of a distinguished preceptor and, when he had completed his novitiate, was free to establish his hermitage where he pleased or to seek the patronage of some king who might welcome his ministrations. The kings inherited the throne of celebrated ancestors, whose memory and fame they cherished with pride and sought to emulate. The rishis came from well-known families indeed, but that birthright merely entitled them to acquire religious lore, and their advancement depended wholly on their own faculties. To maintain their lineage and dynasties was the natural and ardent wish of kings; hence the great desire that is often mentioned among kings to have sons. Rishis perpetuated their sacred lore and fame through their disciples, among whom might be their own sons if capable.

c6.19

One indication of this difference is the fact that, while kings are treated genealogically, brahmanic succession is reckoned by the line of teaching as shown in the lists of religious teachers set out in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad,¹ Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,² &c.³ Marriage alliances were matters of high importance with kings and are often noticed. As regards rishis, though the names of the wives of certain have been preserved, yet very little is ever said about their marriages except when they married princesses; and strange stories are told about rishis, which indicate that their marital relations were not seldom erratic and their lineage by no means pure.¹

c6.20

¹ ii, 6; iv, 6; vi, 5.

c6.21

² x, 6, 5, 9.

c6.22

³ Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, ii, p. 236.

c6.23

¹ Sörensen’s Index to the MBh *re* Droṇa, Kṛpa, Vyāsa, &c. Vedic Index ii, 84, 259.

c6.24

The result is displayed in the epics and Purāṇas on the one side and in the Vedic literature on the other. Sacred lore is the subject of that literature, and references to secular matters are generally incidental for the purpose of illustrating some religious point. The ancient portion of the Purāṇas consists largely, as will be shown in chapter III, of the royal genealogies and kṣatriya ballads and tales, while most of their teaching on religious matters was added by brahmans in later times. Dynastic accounts and heroic tales were the principal subjects of the kṣatriya record. Royal genealogies are found in thirteen Purāṇas, the epics and the Harivaṃśa; but brahman genealogies hardly exist and are most meagre. The former give long lists of kings, but among rishi families it is rare to find more than three or four descents remembered, and the longest rishi pedigree is that of Vyāsa’s family with six descents. Further it is noteworthy that, in cases where a king became a brahman, his kṣatriya descent is given fairly fully, but the succeeding brahman pedigree stops short or is dissipated into a mere list of gotra names, as is especially noticeable in the famous case of Viśvāmitra.²

c6.25

² Vā 91, 96–103. Bd iii, 66, 68–75. Br 10, 57–63. Hv 27, 1460–8; 32, 1767–72. MBh xiii, 4, 248–59.

c6.26

Such were the widely different conditions of kings and rishis. The secular business of kings, their wars and exploits, naturally had little interest for rishis, who dwelt apart from the world and were affected little and only indirectly by political changes. On the other hand, though eminent rishis commanded veneration from kings and their services were at times keenly solicited and handsomely rewarded, yet the religious doctrines of the rishis lay generally outside the purview of kings, unless they were *brahmaṇya*, ‘brahmanically-minded’. Such was the attitude of the people also at large.

c6.27

The foregoing considerations show that there must have been abundant tradition about kings and their exploits, and also much tradition about rishis and their doings; but it is obvious that in such different conditions the traditions about kings and those about rishis must have been correspondingly separate, that is, there must have been two great streams of distinct tradition, kṣatriya tradition and brahmanic tradition. It is absurd to suppose that all the genuine kṣatriya tradition has been lost or utterly corrupted, and that the traditions which we have now are spurious. If the brahmans could and did preserve their religious compositions with the most scrupulous care and fidelity, it is absurd to suppose the opposite about kṣatriya tradition, when (as will be shown in chapter II) there were men whose business it was to preserve such tradition. The general trustworthiness of tradition is the fact demonstrated, wherever it has been possible to test tradition by the results of discoveries and excavations, and we should distrust scepticism born of ignorance. The position now is this—there is a strong presumption in favour of tradition; if any one contests tradition, the burden lies on him to show that it is wrong; and, till he does that, tradition holds the field.

c6.28

The distinction between kṣatriya and brahmanic tradition is very important. It is entirely natural, and there would be matter for wonder if it had not existed, because the Vedic literature confines itself to religious subjects, and notices political and secular occurrences only incidentally so far as they had a bearing on the religious subjects; and it is absurd to suppose that that literature contains all the genuine tradition that existed about political and secular occurrences, such as those involved in the Aryan conquest of North India and those revealed partially in the Rigveda. The very fact that that literature deals almost exclusively with brahmanic thought and action implies that there must have been a body of other tradition dealing with the kṣatriyas and the great part that they played during that conquest and in the political life that was the outcome of it.¹ The distinction existed from the earliest times, until the original Purāṇa was compiled and passed into the custody of the Purāṇic brahmans, as will be explained in chapter II. It is strikingly illustrated in two ways, first, by comparing the notices of kings and rishis in the epic and Purāṇic literature and in the Vedic literature, and secondly, by the difference between the two kinds of tradition. The former is discussed here, and the latter will be dealt with in chapter V.

c6.29

¹ The brahmans of course magnified their part therein, Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, ii, 5-6, 91.

c6.30

Famous kings in the epics and Purāṇas were Māndhātṛ, Hariścandra, Sagara, Bhagīratha, Daśaratha and Rāma of Ayodhyā;

c6.31

Śaśabindu and Arjuna Kārtavīrya among Yādavas; Duṣyanta, Bharata, Ajamīḍha, Kuru and Santanu among Pauravas; Jahnu and Gādhi of Kānyakubja; Divodāsa and Pratardana of Kāśi; Vasu Caidya of Cedi and Magadha; Marutta Āvikṣita and Tṛṇabindu of the Vaiśāla kingdom; and Uśīnara and Śivi of the Panjab Ānavas.¹ All were great monarchs, some of them great conquerors, and many (it is said) great sacrificers. The Rigvedic canon was not closed till after their times, because it contains a hymn by Devāpi, brother (or cousin) of king Śantanu; yet none of those kings are mentioned in the hymns except Bharata,² Śantanu,³ apparently Ajamīḍha⁴ and Māndhātṛ,⁵ and possibly Rāma,⁶ while x, 134 is attributed to Māndhātṛ, and in x, 179, verse 1 is assigned to Śivi and verse 2 to Pratardana.

c6.32

¹ See chap. IX and the table of genealogies in chap. XII.

c6.33

² vi, 16, 4 &c.

c6.34

³ x, 98, 1 &c.

c6.35

⁴ iv, 44, 6.

c6.36

⁵ Called Mandhātṛ in Rigv i, 112, 13: viii, 39, 8; 40, 12.

c6.37

⁶ x, 93, 14.

c6.38

This difference is the more remarkable, because those kings did not all miss laudation for want of rishis. The Vasiṣṭhas were hereditary priests of Ayodhyā, and various members of their family are mentioned in close connexion with Hariścandra, Sagara and Daśaratha. Arjuna Kārtavīrya was favoured by Datta Ātreya.⁷ Marutta Āvikṣita had Saṃvarta Āṅgirasa for his priest,⁸ and a Vasiṣṭha was minister to Kuru’s father Saṃvaraṇa.⁹ It can hardly be supposed that none of those rishis was capable of composing a hymn, nor that no rishis existed who might have celebrated the others of those kings. The absence of laudation is particularly noticeable in the case of Bharata. He is the only one of those great kings who is really extolled in Vedic literature, and yet no contemporary hymn in his honour exists. He reigned in central Madhyadeśa and seems to have been eminently brahmaṇya; and some of his descendants, Gārgyas, Sāṅkṛtyas and others, became brahmans, as will be shown in chapter XXIII.

c6.39

⁷ Vā 94, 10–11. Mat 43, 15. Hv 33, 1852–3. Pad v, 12, 118–19, &c.

c6.40

⁸ Vā 86, 9–11. Bd iii, 61, 5–7. Bhāg ix, 2, 26.

c6.41

⁹ MBh i, 173, 6615–19.

c6.42

On the other hand, the kings who are lauded in the Rigveda are hardly known to kṣatriya fame. Some, such as Vadhryaśva, Divodāsa, Sṛñjaya, Sudās, Sahadeva and Somaka are mentioned as kings in the North Pañcāla genealogy,¹⁰ but nothing particular is recorded in the epics and Purāṇas about any of them except Somaka, and the story told of him is not creditable.¹ Others again such as Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna, Śrutarvan Ārkṣa, Plāyogi Āsaṅga and Svanaya Bhāvya, are absolutely unknown to the genealogies, the epics and the Purāṇas. The explanation of this difference is that the hymns celebrate, not the really great kings, but those who specially favoured and enriched poetical rishis. The praise is no measure of the king’s greatness or fame, but rather the rishi’s grateful laudation of the king’s dignity and generosity. A king, though undistinguished, who secured the services of a poetical rishi and rewarded him liberally, might naturally obtain such praise.²

c6.43

¹⁰ Table of genealogies in chap. XII. JRAS 1918, pp. 229 f.

c6.44

¹ MBh iii, 125, 10422; 127, 10470 to 128, 10499.

c6.45

² See Vedic Index ii, 82, Gifts to brahmans.

c6.46

Similar remarks hold good with regard to the rishis celebrated in the Rigveda and in the epics and Purāṇas, though the difference is naturally not so wide, because the latter in praising them approximate to Vedic matter. Great rishis mentioned in the latter were Ṛcīka, Jamadagni and his son Rāma among the Bhārgavas; the Vasiṣṭhas of Triśaṅku and Hariścandra, of Sagara and of Kalmāṣapāda, all of Ayodhyā, and also Parāśara; Datta and Durvāsas of the Ātreyas; Bṛhaspati, Saṃvarta, Dīrghatamas and Bharadvāja among the Āṅgirasas; the first and great Viśvāmitra and Agastya: yet no hymns are attributed to some of them, and the portions attributed to others are meagre. Dīrghatamas, Parāśara, Bharadvāja, Agastya, Viśvāmitra, Atri and Vasiṣṭha are credited with many hymns, yet these names appear to be merely gotra and not personal names except the first two. On the other hand many rishis, to whom numerous hymns are ascribed, such as Madhucchandas, Kaṇva, Medhātithi, Kakṣīvant, Gṛtsamada, Vāmadeva and Asita, are mentioned in the epics and Purāṇas, though little definite is said about them. The majority of reputed authors are unknown to those works.

c6.47

The Vedic literature gives us notices of ancient times from the brahmanic and religious points of view, and kṣatriya tradition enables us to picture ancient India and its political conditions from the kṣatriya standpoint. The kṣatriyas manifestly played the most important part in the Aryan conquest of India, and if we wish to discover and estimate what their position and achievements were, it is essential to study their traditions, for, as will be shown, the Purāṇic genealogies, and they alone, give an account how the Aila race dominated all the regions to which we assign the Aryan occupation, while the brahmanic literature contains no inkling whatever of that great transformation.

c6.48

Vedic literature not only lacks the historical sense as pointed out above (p. 2), but is not always to be trusted in matters that concerned brahmanical claims and pretensions. The greatest brahmanical book is the Rigveda. It is a compilation of hymns composed by many authors and is arranged according to certain principles. It must manifestly have been compiled and arranged by some one or more persons, yet Vedic literature says absolutely nothing about this. The brahmans cannot have been ignorant about it, for they preserved it and its text with unparalleled care; they certainly did not accept and venerate this canon blindly upon uncertain authority, and they must have known who compiled it and established its text.¹ This is made clearer by another fact, namely, that Vedic literature professes to know and declares the names of the authors of nearly all the hymns and even of single verses, yet it ignores all knowledge of the person or persons who afterwards compiled and arranged those hymns. To suppose that, when it preserved the earlier information, it was ignorant of the later work in so vital a matter is ridiculous. Plainly therefore Vedic literature has deliberately suppressed all information on these matters.

c6.49

¹ We might as well suppose that we do not know who translated the Bible into German, or who gave us the English Bible.

c6.50

Epic and Purāṇic tradition unanimously and repeatedly declares that the Veda was ‘arranged’ by the great rishi, Parāśara’s son Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana, who was consequently renowned by the name Vyāsa.² Yet Vedic literature is remarkably reticent about him, for the Vedic Index mentions no such Kṛṣṇa, no Dvaipāyana, and the only Vyāsa noticed is Vyāsa Pārāśarya, and all it says about him is that this ‘is the name of a mythical sage who in the Vedic period is found only as a pupil of Viṣvaksena in the Vamśa (list of teachers) at the end of the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa and in the late Taittirīya Āraṇyaka.’³ The Mahābhārata and Purāṇas are full of Vyāsa and habitually refer to him as ‘Vyāsa’, and it is incredible that all they say about him is pure fiction. It is beyond doubt that the Vedic literature has deliberately ignored him; there is a conspiracy of silence in it both about the compilation of the Rigveda and about the pre-eminent rishi who is declared to have ‘arranged’ it. The reason is patent. The brahmans put forward the doctrine that the Veda existed from everlasting, hence to admit that any one had compiled or even arranged it struck at the root of their doctrine and was in common parlance, ‘to give their whole case away.’

c6.51

² e.g. MBh i, 63, 2417; 105, 4236. Vā 60, 11–12. Viṣ iii. 4, 2. Kūr i, 52, 10. Acknowledged in the brahmanical Śānti-parvan, MBh xii, 342, 13025, 13119.

c6.52

³ Vedic Index ii, p. 339.

c6.53

These considerations show how little trust can be placed in the Vedic literature as regards any matter which the brahmans found awkward for their pretensions. When they suppressed facts of the greatest moment, it was a light thing to distort smaller matters.¹

c6.54

¹ They did misrepresent, cf. Vedic Index ii, 256.

c6.55

Historical tradition in the Vedic literature has one great merit over that in the epics and Purāṇas, namely, that that literature has been very carefully preserved and what it contains now is what it contained when it was composed, so that its statements are statements of that time. Hence there is a strong presumption that its statements being ancient are nearer accuracy than statements in the epics and Purāṇas which were not so scrupulously preserved. But the presumption is seriously weakened by three well-known facts, (1) that literature deals with religious matters and is not of historical purpose nor does it deal with history (p. 2); (2) the brahmans, its authors, lacked the historical sense; and (3) they lived in secluded hermitages, and so lacked clear knowledge. The first two of these facts have been discussed above, and the third will be noticed more fully in chapter V, but one illustration of it may be mentioned here. The brahmanical story of Śunaḥśepa ² speaks of the most famous city Ayodhyā as a village (grāma)! ³

c6.56

² Aitareya Brāhm vii, 3, 1 f. Śaṅkhāyana Śr Sūtra xv, 17–25.

c6.57

³ JRAS, 1917, p. 52, note.

c6.58

With such grave defects the presumption virtually disappears, and two instances may be cited in which the brahmanical books are wrong, both taken from that story, which affords special opportunities for testing brahmanical accuracy. It says that the sacrifice of Śunaḥśepa was a rājasūya, and the first Viśvāmitra is there styled Bharata-ṛṣabha. Now the sacrifice was not a rājasūya, because Hariścandra had been reigning then some twenty-five years, the real rājasūya took place early in his reign, and the sacrifice of Śunaḥśepa was merely the belated fulfilment of a special vow. The appellation *Bharata-ṛṣabha*, ‘leader of the Bharatas,’ was impossible, because the Bharatas were Viśvāmitra’s descendants and had not come into existence then, as will be shown in chapter IX.¹ Statements in Vedic literature therefore, though ancient, may be incorrect, and, if wrong originally, no amount of careful preservation can make them true. Besides, priestly tampering must not be forgotten, as shown above with regard to Vyāsa.

c6.59

¹ JRAS, 1917, pp. 57, 64. The rājasūya, MBh ii, 12, 491-5.

c6.60

Though historical works about ancient India are wanting, yet tradition has handed down fairly copious genealogies of the ancient dynasties. These state the succession of kings, and in that way are historical. They are almost the only historical data found in Sanskrit books as regards ancient political development; and the lists of teachers in professed chronological order set out in some brahmanical books supply evidence as regards brahmanical succession. The genealogies form the basis by which the investigation of tradition for historical ends may be tested. They supply the best chronological clue, for the Vedic literature, as shown above, is not a sure guide in historical matters.

c6.61

Great importance has been attached to historical statements in the Vedic literature, even when not contemporaneous and when based on tradition, and epic and Purāṇic tradition has been discredited, however numerous and clear may be its statements about any particular matter. Such exaltation of Vedic literature and depreciation of epic and Purāṇic tradition has led to surprising conclusions. Tradition in many passages tells of an early and well-known king of Ayodhyā named Satyavrata Triśaṅku, who was the subject of a famous contest between Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra,² and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (i, 10, 6) merely names an obscure religious teacher Triśaṅku (who belonged to a far later time); yet it has been said, ‘The confusion of the chronology in the tales of Triśaṅku is a good example of the worthlessness of the supposed epic tradition.’³ An apt parallel to the two Triśaṅkus occurs in Saul king of Israel and Saul (Paul) the religious teacher; yet would any one say—the confusion of the chronology in the tales of Saul is a good example of the worthlessness of the supposed historical books of the Old Testament?

c6.62

² Chap. XVIII. JRAS, 1913, pp. 888 f.; 1917, pp. 37-40.

c6.63

³ Vedic Index i, 331.

c6.64

Exaltation of Vedic literature has drawn historical conclusions even from its silence. It is not of historical purpose and does not deal with history (p. 2), hence its silence about historical points is of no significance, and to draw historical conclusions from its mere silence is astonishing. Two illustrations of this may be adduced.

c6.65

First, it is said with reference to Yayāti, ‘There is no trace whatever of his connexion with Pūru, as in the Epic, the tradition of which must be deemed to be inaccurate’.¹ Would any one argue—there is no trace whatever in the Book of Psalms of David’s connexion with Solomon, as in the historical books of the Old Testament, the statement of which must be deemed to be inaccurate?

c6.66

¹ Vedic Index ii, 187.

c6.67

A few words may be said about the argument from silence, and the second example will illustrate them. Some matter, say A, is mentioned, and nothing is said about another matter, say B; and the question is, whether the silence regarding B proves anything against it. If B is closely connected with or directly related to A, it would naturally arise with A, and we should expect to hear of it along with A, so that, if it is not mentioned, the silence is strange and is cogent evidence against B. But if B is apart from A and has no concern with it, there is no reason why it should ordinarily be mentioned with A, so that the silence is natural and indicates nothing. The criterion is, whether in the particular circumstances silence is unnatural or not. If unnatural, it is significant; if natural, it has no significance in this respect.

c6.68

The second illustration is this. The epics and Purāṇas repeatedly declare that the first Viśvāmitra was a king who became a brahman, but ‘there is no trace of his kingship in the Rigveda’; and, though it is supported even by brahmanical books such as the Nirukta and the Aitareya and Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇas, yet the conclusion has been drawn, ‘that there is no real trace of this kingship of Viśvāmitra: it may probably be dismissed as a mere legend, with no more foundation at most than that Viśvāmitra was of a family which once had been royal. But even this is doubtful’.² Now, after Viśvāmitra had renounced his kṣatriya status and kingdom and become a brahman, neither he nor his descendants had any motive to refer to that discarded past in any Vedic hymns, which he or they may have composed as rishis in circumstances that had nothing to do with that past and were alien to it, while other rishis had no concern with it. It would have been surprising if his kingship had been mentioned in such circumstances, and it is entirely natural that there should be no mention of it in the Rigveda. The non-mention of it there is not only no reason for discrediting the tradition but it is in exact keeping with what would be expected if the tradition were true. The tradition therefore stands unshaken.¹

c6.69

² Ibid. ii, 311–12.

c6.70

¹ JRAS, 1913, 887-8.

c6.71

The foregoing considerations suggest some remarks on the way in which ancient Indian historical tradition should be treated. It is not to be put aside as wholly unworthy of attention, nor is it to be summarily explained by prima facie comments. The former course is not criticism but is mere prejudging the matter, and the latter is superficial observation. It is not to be interpreted by way of personification and allegory, as that the story of Rāma’s doings in S. India and Ceylon represents the spread of Aryan civilization in the south. That is akin to euhemerism, and shirks real examination by suggesting a specious theory. Nor is it to be scrutinized for defects and discrepancies and so promptly discredited. All human testimony is liable to error, and tradition is human testimony concerning the long past : hence it is not to be discarded simply because it contains discrepancies. Ancient Indian historical tradition must be examined and weighed with the aid of all information available and of experience and common sense. It was preserved by the sūtas or bards and when collected into the Purāṇa soon passed into the hands of the Purāṇic brahmans, as will be shown in the next chapter. The attitude of the latter to ancient matters differed from that of the former, and changed still more as time went on through the causes that will be explained in chapter V, taking more and more a brahmanical colouring, so that generally the more brahmanical a statement is, the later or less trustworthy it is. This will appear, for instance, from the variations in the descriptions of the Dānavas, Daityas and Rākṣasas.² The older accounts treat them as men, the late brahmanical as demons.

c6.72

² See Prof. E. W. Hopkins, Epic Mythology, pp. 38-52.

c6.73

Hitherto opinions about ancient India have been based on a study of the Veda and Vedic literature without much regard for historical tradition outside that. Historical tradition yields very different conclusions. To make the former the chief and authoritative basis of historical reconstruction is much the same as to write European history mainly from theological works—an undertaking that would not receive a moment's acceptance; yet that is how ancient India has been treated, and the results have been regarded with satisfaction. Vedic literature is not authoritative in historical matters (except where it notices contemporary matters), and conclusions drawn from it are not criteria for estimating the results yielded by historical tradition in the epics and Purāṇas. Those results are set out in the following pages and must be judged independently on their own merits. I have not drawn information from Buddhist and Jain literature, because it is of no real help: it is religious, does not deal with history any more than Vedic literature, and having diverged from the main course of Indian religion had largely lost touch with ancient tradition.

c6.74

In the following chapters I endeavour to deal fully with ancient Indian historical tradition, basing my statements always on definite statements in Sanskrit books and citing those authorities; and no statements are made without such support.¹ The chief authorities are the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata, and less reliably the Rāmāyaṇa; and as the first are continually mentioned, the word is Anglicized as Purana. Among the Puranas is reckoned the Harivaṃśa which is really a Purana. The Puranas are cited by name,² and the Mahābhārata in the Calcutta edition.³ References are cited as copiously as possible, so that all passages may be combined and receive due consideration, because, when tradition is dealt with, the quantity and character of the statements about any particular matter are important in the way of evidence. The same matter or person has often to be noticed in different aspects or connexions, and cross-references have been given as far as practicable, yet it is impossible in the early pages to particularize later pages. A copious index is added, which will aid comparison, so that all the information on any particular subject may be collected, and the book serve as a compendium of ancient historical tradition.

c6.75

¹ Sanskrit passages have not been quoted except rarely when essential, because of the great cost of printing.

c6.76

² The editions cited are these: Vāyu, Matsya, Brahma and Padma, Ānandāśrama. Kūrma, Mārkaṇḍeya, Varāha and Vṛhannāradīya, Bibliotheca Indica. Agni, Liṅga, Garuḍa and Viṣṇu, Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgar's. Brahmāṇḍa and Bhaviṣya, Śrī-Veṅkaṭeśvara. Bhāgavata, Gaṇapata-Kṛṣṇājī.

c6.77

³ Including the Harivaṃśa. The Rāmāyaṇa in the Bombay edition.

Linked texts (28)