Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s3.60

c9.s3.60

Dr. Dutt next says that it is always risky to attempt identification of kings or the fixing of their dates from an examination of their teacher-priests' names. But why should it be risky if the names and order of succession be genuine? The real risk lies in the rejection of such evidence without sufficient examination. It should be remembered in this connection that the identification of the Vedic Pārikshita Janamejaya with his Epic namesake (descendant of Abhimanyu) does not depend mainly on the teacher-priests' names, but on the following facts, *viz.*, (1) absence of any cogent proof of the existence of an earlier Janamejaya Pārikshita in view of the omission of his name in the *Jāva* text, Choḍa inscriptions etc., and (2) agreement of particulars about the Vedic Parikshit and Janamejaya (*e. g.*, words describing the prosperity of the Kuru realm, the performance of two *Aśvamedhas*, quarrel with the Kaśyapas), with what we know of Parikshit and Janamejaya who were descendants of Abhimanyu. The question of the chronological relation between the Vedic Parikshit and the Vedic Janaka is entirely independent of this identification. This relation has been determined on the strength of two different lines of evidence. Materials for one have indeed been taken from the *Vaṁśa* list of the Brāhmaṇas. But the succession from Indrota to Somaśushma has been reconstructed from incidental notices in the Brāhmaṇa texts themselves which no critic has represented as late.