Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c9.16

c9.16

The third inference from the name Bhaviṣyat is that before that Purana could have been composed about ‘the future’ there must have been some general consensus of opinion when ‘the future’ began. The Bhaviṣyat and Bhaviṣya are referred to here as distinct, the former being the Purana cited by Āpastamba, and the latter that which existed in the third century A.D. as mentioned above, and which, modified by the continual tampering to which it has notoriously been subjected, we have now. When the Bhaviṣyat was composed, whenever that was, obviously everything after that time was ‘future’, so that the third century B.C. at the latest and all after time fell into ‘the future’; and it would have included the two preceding centuries if Āpastamba should be antedated. It is however pretty obvious that ‘the future’ must have commenced before the Bhaviṣyat was composed, otherwise there would have been little to speak of beyond vague prophecies and teleology, subjects hardly attractive enough of themselves alone to win general interest in a new ‘Purana’.¹ Hence ‘the future’ had probably been reckoned as having begun some time before, so that the author could have commenced with interesting tales of what had taken place before launching out into talk about the real and unknown future. This inference is entirely supported by the statement ante that the Bhaviṣyat began with the story of Kṛṣṇa’s son Sāmba soon after the Bhārata battle, and by the following further declarations.