Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c6.61

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?