History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.143

v7.c90.143

The authors of the extant Vāyu and other Purāṇas are conscious that the sūta and māgadha in their times had no adhikāra for Veda, that the business of the sūta was to note the dynasties of gods, sages and kings that are found in the Itihāsa and Purāṇas. They felt scandalized by the fact that great sages like Śaunaka were said to have learnt Purāṇas from the sūta who in their times belonged to a pratiloma caste, about which Gautama, Viṣṇudharmasūtra and Kauṭilya himself lay down that pratilomas are like śūdras, are condemned by āryas and are beyond the pale of the usual duties of brāhmanas and kṣatriyas (such as *upanayana*, Veda study, teaching &c.) Learning by a brāhmana from a kṣatriya was considered even in Upanisad times as contrary to the natural order of things. Vide the words of king Ajātaśatru to Gārgya Bālāki¹⁴⁰⁰ quoted below. Therefore, to account for the position of Sūta as instructor in Itihāsa and Purāna of great sages like Śaunaka, the story of Sūta's birth was invented and he was placed in a separate category by himself. This must have occurred some centuries before Kautilya who was aware of the low position of sūta and māgadha and differentiates the Paurāṇika sūta from the *pratiloma* sūta and māgadha. One need not accept the divine character of Sūta, one has only to understand that in very ancient times brāhmanas could, without any qualms and without loss of prestige, learn about legends from a sūta, but that in the times when the extant purānas were compiled the position had entirely changed.