History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.122

v7.c90.122

The question why the extant Purāṇas do not narrate the traditions about the dynasties of the Guptas and their successors cannot be satisfactorily answered. One reason may be that the original kernel of some Purāṇas like the extant Matsya were compiled before the Guptas rose to power, while others like the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa were compiled while the Gupta rule was in its infancy. Another reason may have been that in the 5th and following centuries when many of the extant Purāṇas were compiled northern India was very much disturbed by the invasions of foreigners like the Hūnas, ¹³⁸⁹ Toramāṇa and Mihirakula, numerous sects and schisms had arisen, Buddhism had become powerful and therefore the first task of the intelligent and devout followers of the Veda was held to be to wean the common people away from schisms like that of Buddha, to lay down the foundations of a new ideology among the masses and to emphasize and assimilate as many of the doctrines of the sects and schisms as possible with their ancient traditions and practices. The intelligent classes, therefore, emphasized the importance of such virtues as ahiṁsā, satya, bhakti and of vratas, pilgrimages, śrāddhas and dānas and were probably not in a mood to record the names of foreign conquerors or of small chieftains fighting with each other and unable to repel the cruel invaders. For the absence of references to the dynasties of the Guptas and their successors, Pargiter blames the brāhmaṇas in the following characteristic passage (AIHT chap. 4 p. 57) 'the absolute dearth of traditional history after that stage is quite intelligible, both because the compilation of the Purāṇa had set a seal of tradition and because the Purāṇa soon passed into the hands of brāhmaṇas who preserved what they had received, but with the brahmanic lack of the historic sense, added nothing about the later kings'. Supposing for argument that brāhmaṇas lacked the historic sense, Pargiter's opinion appears to be entirely one-sided. He assigns no reason why the sūtas, whose business was to record and preserve historic tradition (as he himself says on p. 58 of AIHT), did not stick to their business and did not continue to compose genealogies of later kings and to add further items of history to already existing recorded tradition, nor does he explain how the sūtas could be ousted or allowed themselves to be ousted from their age-old vocation by the brāhmaṇas. It is probable that foreign dynasties like that of Kaniṣka and the Hūṇas did not encourage the sūtas who had sunk low in the social scale and the sūtas probably became Buddhists, as Buddhism with its Jātaka stories gave to all persons following a bardic profession sufficient scope for earning their livelihood.