Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s3.57

c9.s3.57

² The identification of the Vedic Parikshit with the son of Abhimanyu who flourished after the Bhārata War does not seem probable to Dr. N. Dutt, the author of *The Aryanisation of India*, pp. 50 ff., because, in the first place, it goes against the findings of Macdonell, Keith and Pargiter who prefer to identify the Vedic Parikshit with an ancestor of the Pāṇḍus. As to this it may be pointed out that the existence of a Parikshit (father of Janamejaya) *before the Pāṇḍus*, rests mainly on the testimony of those very genealogies which are regarded by Keith as worthless and unreliable (cf. *RPVU* 21, 618). That the name of Janamejaya in this connection is an intrusion into the genealogical texts is evident from its omission from Chapter 95 of the *Mahābhārata*, the *Java* text, the Chellur grant, etc. Dr. Dutt next argues that the *Vishṇu Purāṇa* makes the four brothers Janamejaya, Śrutasena, etc., sons of Parikshit I. If he had only perused a subsequent passage (IV. 21. 1.) he would have seen that the *Purāṇa* makes the
(2) Discrepancy between the lists appended to the 10th and 14th books respectively of the *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa* in regard to the authorship of the work and ascription of the work to different teachers.
(3) Scant courtesy shown to an alleged teacher by his pupil. As to (1), the *Āchārya paramparā*, succession of teachers, is distinctly alluded to by the commentators. If they did not enter into a detailed explanation, it is because they considered it to be *sugamam*, *spashṭam*, easily intelligible plain.
(2) There is no *Vaṁśa* list at the close of the 14th book of the *Brāhmaṇa* proper excluding the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad*. There are no doubt lists of teachers at the end of the *Upanishad*. It is too much to expect that, in the various lists, the entire Brāhmaṇa as well as the Upanishad should be ascribed to the same traditional authority. The Brāhmaṇa and Upanishad text are not works of single individuals. The question of discrepancy therefore, does not arise. Reference to different traditions regarding the authorship of a particular work, or of particular portions of a work, does not necessarily vitiate any *Āchārya-paramparā* regarding which we have substantial agreement in the texts.
(3) It is too much to expect that in ancient, as in modern times, all pupils should be equally respectful to teachers. Was not Dhṛishṭadyumna a pupil of Droṇāchārya whom he killed?