Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c15.s4.t1.9

c15.s4.t1.9

Keith and Macdonell say that in view of the fact that the early literature mentions Dārbhya as a sage, it seems doubtful whether the commentator is correct in thinking that the *Śatapatha* refers to a king and a people. A sage alone may well be meant, while the *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*, which refers to him as a prince, is of no great authority.⁷ They further suggest that the "later work may have assumed that the reference in the *Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā* to the Keśin people signifies kingship, but this is hardly necessary".⁸ Keith and Macdonell may be right in doubting the accuracy of the commentator about the Keśin king and a Keśin sage. But in our opinion they are over-cautious when they dismiss the *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa* as "of no great authority," simply because it is somewhat later than the more famous *Brāhmaṇas*. Even if generally accepted as unauthentic and known to be late, the text may contain some historical information, as for example do Buddhaghosa's commentaries and the *Jātakas*.