Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c9.14

c9.14

The next inference is that the foregoing change implied long usage—that is, the Puranas began long before Āpastamba’s time. His sūtra is estimated by Bühler as not later than the third century B.C., and possibly 150–200 years earlier.² His citation of the Bhaviṣyat as an authority shows that it was no new work then, but had acquired an acknowledged position of dignity, which it could not have attained to in less than half a century. Hence the Bhaviṣyat cannot be placed later than the early part of the third century B.C., and even possibly earlier still by the above 150–200 years. At that time the title Purana had completely lost its original meaning, and the question arises, what length of time would have been required to bring about that result. There can be no definite pronouncement on this, but the time cannot have been less than two centuries, considering the conditions of literature in those times, and was probably much longer. Hence Puranas must have existed at least as early as the beginning of the fifth century B.C.; and this lower limit would be shifted 150–200 years earlier if a prior date be given to Āpastamba. It is quite probable therefore that the Matsya existed long prior to him, as indeed his citation of it indicates (p. 44).