Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c6.27

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.