The History of Indian Literature c8.132.3

c8.132.3

and in the Áśvaláyana-Gṛihya these: *Sumantu-Jaimini-Vaiśampáyana-Paila-sútra-bhárata-mahábhárata-dharmácháryáḥ*.⁴⁷ The latter passage is evidently the more modern, and although we must not suppose that the Mahá-Bhárata in its present form is here referred to, still, in the expression "*Vaiśampáyano mahábháratácháryaḥ*," apparently indicated by this passage, there must at all events be implied a work of some compass, treating of the same legend, and therefore forming the basis of our extant text. The passage seems also to indicate that the same material had already been handled a second time by Jaimini, whose work, however, can have borne but a distant resemblance to the Jaimini-Bhárata of the present day. We shall find in the sequel frequent confirmation of the fact that the origin of the epic and the systematic development of Vedic literature in its different schools belong to the same period. Of a Sútra by Sumantu, and a Dharma by Paila, we have no knowledge whatever. It is only in more modern times, in the Puráṇas and in the legal literature proper, that I find a work attributed to Sumantu, namely, a Smṛiti-Śástra; while to Paila (whose name appears from Páṇ. iv. 1. 118) is ascribed the revelation of the Ṛigveda—a circumstance which at least justifies the inference that he played a special part in the definitive completion of its school development.—It is, however, possible to give a wholly different interpretation of the passage from Áśvaláyana;