Studies in the Epics and Puranas c9.5

c9.5

Before meeting these arguments it is worth considering Pargiter's well-known theory of Brahmin and Kṣatriya tradition, of which the above inference comes as a natural corollary, since the Kṣatriya or popular tradition, before being taken over by the Brahmins, was in the language of the people, the Prakrit.⁴ This theory on which rests the superstructure of the inference of Prakrit origin, however, is untenable on account of a number of reasons, which are briefly indicated here. In the first place, there have never been in India, two such water-tight compartments as the Brāhmaṇa tradition and the Kṣatriya tradition. Even in the works distinctly assigned to Kṣatriya tradition by Pargiter, we find the glorification of the Brāhmaṇas, and the so-called Brahmanic literature abounds in Kṣatriya legends. There has always been a Kṣatriya king and a Brāhmaṇa Guru; and some stray quarrels between individual kings and their priests do not warrant the inference of a fight between the Church and the State, which European scholars are always prone to draw on the analogy of similar eternal quarrels in their own country. The Purāṇas themselves assign a comparatively small portion to genealogical accounts,—the genuine Kṣatriya tradition according to Pargiter. The Purāṇas, moreover, follow the Vedic religion, and pride in styling themselves the fifth Veda; and entirely ignore, as stated by Prof. Dikshitar, non-Vedic sects as Buddhism and Jainism.⁵ The so-called Kṣatriya texts, viz. the epics and the Purāṇas, are equally Brahmanic compilations like the *Saṃhitās*, *Brāhmaṇas*, etc. Further, as observed by Prof. Keith, the earliest reference to Purāṇas is for a point of Brahmanical lore and not for a point of genealogy or history, which would have been the case had Pargiter's view regarding the Kṣatriya origin of the Purāṇas been correct;⁶ other early references also relate to similar matters. It is thus clear that there was no such thing as the distinct Brāhmaṇa and Kṣatriya tradition.