Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c6.28

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.