Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c6.71

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.