Studies in the Epics and Puranas c7.s3.t5.2

c7.s3.t5.2

As the Vedic texts and the Purāṇas were produced under different circumstances and with different aims and objects, there would naturally be some differences in the accounts recorded in them. It will be seen, however, that there is practically no contradiction or conflict between the Vedic texts and the Purāṇas. The Ṛgveda as we have it is a Kuru-pañcāla product and naturally kings belonging to that country play prominent roles in it and others find but incidental mention. Kings who are mentioned in the Vedic texts but are not found in the Purāṇic tradition were possibly princes and chieftains of smaller dynasties not preserved in the dynastic lists in the Purāṇas. There is also the possibility of the same person being referred to under different names in the two sets of traditional accounts. Some of the kings mentioned in the Ṛgveda can be fitted in the gaps in the Purāṇic lists. The Ṛgveda no doubt offers the proper corrective to the Purāṇic lists; but, when we find Purāṇic accounts to be corroborated by the Vedic evidence, it is legitimate to take their testimony as valid in matters on which the Ṛgveda is silent. The proper procedure for the writing of traditional history is to take into account the joint testimony of the Vedic and Purāṇic texts wherever available and to try to bring harmony into the conflicting texts. The evidence of the Purāṇas in these matters needs very careful consideration.