The History of Indian Literature c8.252.4

c8.252.4

The doctrine in question is thus derived at third hand only, and we have to recognise in this tradition a consciousness of the late origin of this form of it. This late origin manifests itself externally also in the fact that corresponding passages from other sources are quoted with exceeding frequency in support of the doctrine, introduced by “*athá ’nyatrá ’py uktam*,” “*etad apy uktam*,” “*atre ’me śloká bhavanti*,” “*atha yathe ’yam Kautsáyanastutiḥ*.” The ideas themselves are quite upon a level with those of the fully developed Sáṃkhya doctrine,† and the language is completely marked off from the prose of the Bráhmaṇas, both by extremely long compounds, and by words entirely foreign to these, and only belonging to the epic period (such as *sura*, *yaksha*, *uraga*, *bhútagana*, &c.). The mention also of the *grahas*, planets, and of the motion of the polar star (*dhruvasya prachâlanam*), supposes a period considerably posterior to the Bráhmaṇa.¹⁰³ The zodiacal signs are even mentioned in Anquetil's translation; the text to which I have access does not unfortunately extend so far.¹⁰⁴ That among the princes enumerated in the introduction as having met their downfall, notwithstanding all their greatness, not one name occurs belonging to the narrower legend of the Mahá-Bhárata or Rámáyaṇa, is no doubt simply owing to the circumstance that Bṛihadratha is regarded as the predecessor of the Páṇḍus.