The History of Indian Literature c9.24.3

c9.24.3

143) that the family of the Paráśaras is represented with especial frequency in the *vanśas* of the White Yajus.[^asterisk] We also find repeated allusions in the Bráhmaṇas to a Naimishíya sacrifice, and, on the authority of the Mahá-Bhárata itself, it was at such a sacrifice that the *second* recitation of the epic took place in presence of a Śaunaka. But, as has likewise been remarked above [pp. 34, 45], these two sacrifices must be kept distinct, and indeed there is no mention in the Bráhmaṇas of a Śaunaka as participating in the former. Nay, several such sacrifices may have taken place in the Naimisha forest [see p. 34]; or it is possible even that the statement as to the recitation in question may have no more foundation than the desire to give a peculiar consecration to the work. For it is utterly absurd to suppose that Vyása Páráśarya and Vaiśampáyana—teachers mentioned for the first time in the Taittiríya-Áraṇyaka—could have been anterior to the sacrifice referred to in the Bráhmaṇas. The mention of the “Bhárata” and of the “Mahá-Bhárata” itself in the Gṛihya-Sútras of Áśvaláyana [and Śáṅkháyana] we have characterised [p. 58] as an interpolation or else an indication that these Sútras are of very late date. In Páṇini the word “Mahá-Bhárata” does indeed occur; not, however, as denoting the epic of this name, but as an appellative to designate any individual of special distinction among the Bháratas, like Mahá-Jábála,-Hailihila (see *I. St.*, ii. 73).