Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c6.68

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