Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c12: Chapter VIII. Conclusion

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII. Conclusion

c12.1

Results of previous chapters—Winter solstice in Phâlguna and Mâgha—Successive year-beginnings in old times stated and explained—The second traditional year-beginning in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ—Winter solstice in Chaitra and vernal equinox in Punarvasu—Vedic traditions corroborating the same—The commencement of the sacrifice with Aditi, the presiding deity of Punarvasu—The asterismal Prajâpati with Chitrâ for his head—THE CONCLUSIONS—Periods of ancient Vedic literature stated and described—The Pre-Orion Period, 6000—4000 B. C.—The Orion Period, 4000—2500 B. C. The Krittikâ Period, 2500—1400 B. C.—Pre Buddistic Period, 1400—500 B. C.—Not inconsistent with the results of Comparative Philology or Mythology—Rate of the precession of the equinoxes—Correctly determined by the Hindus—Continuous record of the different positions of the equinoxes in Sanskrit literature—Traditions based upon the same—Prajâpati, Rohinî and Rudra—Meaning of Rohinî—The Krittikâs in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ and Vedânga Jyotisha—The equinox in Ashvinî in later works.—Story of Vishvâmitra—Notices of the recession of the rainy season from Bhâdrapada to Jyeshtha Conclusions shewn to be consistent with the traditions regarding the antiquity of Zoroaster and the Vedas.

c12.2

We have thus traced back one of the traditions about the old beginnings of the year, mentioned in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ, to the oldest of the Vedic works, and what is still more important, shown that the Vedic traditions are in this respect completely corroborated by the oldest records and traditions of the other two sections of the Aryan race—the Parsis and the Greeks. The traditions of each nation taken singly may not be conclusive, but when, putting all these together, and interpreting one set in the light of another, we find that directly or indirectly all point to the same conclusion, their cumulative effect cannot but be conclusive. Scholars have already discovered the similarity between the traditions of the three nations; but without any clue to the period when all the Aryas lived together, it was impossible to reduce all these traditions into a harmonious whole. The traditions of Orion, and especially its position at the beginning of the equinoctial year, do, however, supply such a clue, and with its help the mystery about the oldest periods of Aryan civilization is considerably cleared up. Thus if Orion is now no longer a hunter of unknown parentage, we need not also indulge in uncertain speculations about the foamy weapon with which Indra killed his enemy, or how the four-eyed dogs came to be stationed at the Chinvat Bridge, or why the Ribhus are said to be awakened by a dog at the end of the year.

c12.3

Astronomically the matter is as simple as it could be. All our measurements of time are directly based upon the changes in the positions of heavenly bodies. But there is no measurement of time, at present determined, which is longer than the period during which the equinoxes complete their revolution in the ecliptic. It is, therefore, the best measurement of time for determining the periods of antiquity, only if we have reliable records about the position of heavenly bodies in early days. Fortunately, such records of the time, when the Hellenic, the Iranian and the Indian Aryans lived together, have been preserved for us in the Rigveda, and with the help of the Greek and Parsi traditions we can now decipher these records inscribed on the specially cultivated memory of the Indian Aryans. Commencing with the passages in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ and the Brâhmaṇas, which declare that the Phalgunî full-moon was once the new-year's night, we found that Mṛigashiras was designated by a name which, if rightly interpreted, showed that the vernal equinox coincided with that asterism in old times. This was, so to speak, a sort of corroborative evidence of the truth of the statement in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ. A reference to the figure will show at a glance that if the sun be at the winter solstice on the Phalguni full moon day, the moon to be full must be diametrically opposite to the sun and also near Phalguni. Uttarâ Phalguni will thus be at the summer solstice and the vernal equinox will coincide with Mrigashiras. With the solstice in Mâgha, the equinox will be in the Krittikâs ; while when the Uttarâyaṇa begins in Pauṣha the equinox is in Ashvinî. Ashvinî and Pauṣha, Krittikâs and Mâgha, and Mrigashiras and Phâlguna are thus the correlative pairs of successive year-beginnings depending entirely upon the precession of the equinoxes ; and the facts, statements, texts and legends discussed in the previous chapters supply us with reliable evidence, direct and indirect, of the existence of all these year-beginnings in the various periods of Aryan civilization. It has been further shown that not only the traditions, but also the primitive calendar of the Parsis bears out the conclusions we have deduced from the Vedic works.

c12.4

We have so far considered only one of the traditional year beginnings recorded in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ, the Phalguni full-moon But it may be asked how we interpret the other mentioned along with it, and almost in the same words. Analogy at once suggests that we should interpret it in the same way as we have interpreted the first. With the Phalguni full-moon, at the winter solstice the vernal equinox was in Mrigashiras; so with the Chitrâ full-moon at the solstice the vernal equinox would be in Punarvasû.

c12.5

The first of these, the *Gospel of the Hebrews*, was used by the Jewish Christians of Palestine, and was probably a version of the Gospel of Matthew, though it contained some traditions not found in our canonical books. The *Gospel of the Egyptians* was used by the ascetic sects of Egypt, and was marked by a strong tendency towards mysticism and asceticism. The *Gospel of Peter* was used by the Docetists, and taught that Christ did not really suffer, but only appeared to do so.

c12.6

These gospels, and others like them, were not accepted by the Church as a whole, and were gradually lost or suppressed. The Church, however, felt the need for a standard collection of writings that would serve as a guide for faith and practice. This led to the formation of the New Testament canon, a process that took several centuries to complete.

c12.7

The first step in this process was the collection of the letters of Paul, which were widely circulated among the churches. Then came the four Gospels, which were accepted as the authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles and the other epistles were gradually added, and finally the Book of Revelation.

c12.8

By the end of the second century, the core of the New Testament was generally accepted by the Church. The process of canonization was not a formal act of a council, but rather a gradual recognition by the churches of the writings that were most valuable for their life and worship. It was only in the fourth century that the canon was formally closed by the councils of the Church.

c12.9

The formation of the New Testament canon was a crucial event in the history of the Church. It provided a standard of faith and practice that helped to unify the Church and to protect it from the influence of heretical sects. It also ensured that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be preserved for future generations.

c12.11

EXPLANATION :—The figure is drawn on the supposition that the earth (E) is in the centre, that the sun moves in the Ecliptic, and the precession of the equinoxes is caused by the motion of the Ecliptic. With a given Nakshatra at the vernal equinox, we can here at once find what Nakshatras would be at the other cardinal points and hence also the month at the winter solstice.

c12.12

Let us, therefore, see if we have evidence in the Vedic literature in support of such an interpretation. It may be observed that we are here entering upon the remotest period of antiquity, when the year was probably first determined with some approach to accuracy; and even in the Vedas there is hardly anything beyond vague traditions about this period, while the Greeks and the Parsis have not, it appears, preserved even these.

c12.13.1

There is no express passage which states that Punarvasû was ever the first of the Nakshatras, nor have we in this case a synonym like Agrahâyaṇa, or Orion, wherein we might discover similar traditions. There are, however, some indications about the oldest position of Punarvasû preserved in the sacrificial literature. The presiding deity of Punarvasû is Aditi, and we are told in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa i. 7, and the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ vi. 1. 5. 1, that Aditi has been blessed with a boon that all sacrifices must commence and end with her. The story begins with the statement that the Sacrifice (the mysterious sacrificial personage) went away from the gods. The gods were then unable to perform any further ceremonies, and did not know where it (the sacrifice) had gone to; and it was Aditi that helped them, in this state, to find out the proper commencement of the sacrifices.[*] This clearly means, if it can mean anything, that before this time sacrifices were performed at random, but it was at this time resolved and fixed to commence them from Aditi. Aditi was thus the oldest and the first commencement of the sacrifice or the year. In the Vâjasaneyi Saṃhitâ 4. 19 Aditi is said to be *ubhayatah shirṣṇī*, “double-headed,” and the commentators interpret it to mean that the two termini of the sacrifices, which began and ended with Aditi, are the two heads here alluded to. These traditions are further corroborated by the sacrificial ceremonies.

c12.13.2

According to the sacrificial terminology the 4th day before Viṣhûvân or the central day of the yearly *satra* is called the Abhijit day. “In the sixth month,” observes Dr. Haug,* “there are three Abhiplava, *ṣaḷahas* (six-day’s periods) and one Pṛiṣhṭhya *ṣaḷaha*.” This makes up the first 24 days of the sixth month. The following days are thus enumerated: the Abhijit day, the three *svarasâman* days and the Viṣhûvân, or the central day which stands quite apart.” Thus if we exclude the Viṣhûvân day, as standing apart by itself, this gives us four days, and with the two days—*Atirâtra* and *Chaturvinsha*—which are taken up by the initial ceremonies of the *satra*, we make up the *ṣaḷaha* wanted to complete the six months. The Abhijit day thus falls on the fourth day before the Viṣhûvân. Now if Abhijit day be supposed to be named after the Nakshatra of that name (*i e.*, when the sun is in Abhijit) then the Viṣhûvân, or the autumnal equinox must fall four days—or as the sun travels over about 1° of the ecliptic each day, 4°—after the asterism of Abhijit; and it can be shewn by astronomical calculation that, with Aditi or Punarvasû at the vernal equinox to commence the sacrifice, we get nearly the same result. In the Sûrya Siddhânta (viii.

c12.13.3

3 table) the longitude of Punarvasû is said to be 93°, while that of Abhijit is 266° 40′, that is, in other words, Abhijit would be about 6° behind the autumnal equinox or Vishuvan, if we suppose the vernal equinox to exactly coincide with Punarvasû. With the vernal equinox in Punarvasû there is again no other Nakshatra nearer to or at the autumnal equinox to mark the Vishùvân day. We can, therefore, now understand why Abhijit, which is so far away from the ecliptic, should have been included in the old list of the Nakshatras. It marked the approach of the Vishùvân in the primitive sacrificial calendar, but when it ceased to be used for that purpose owing to the falling back of seasons, it was naturally dropped from the list of the Nakshatras, as it was far away from the Zodiac. If Bentley's suggestion about Mûla and Jyeshthâ be correct, this must have been done at the time when the vernal equinox was in Orion. But be that as it may, it will, I think, be clear from the above that the position of the Abhijit day in the sacrificial literature fully supports the tradition about Aditi, the presiding deity of Punarvasû having discovered the commencement of the sacrifice. Aditi at this time must have also separated the Devayâna from the Pitriyâna and thus may have been appropriately called the mother of the Devas (Rig. x. 72. 5).* It was from her that the Âdityas were born (Rig. x. 72. 8 ; Shat. Br. iii. 1. 3. 2.), or the sun commenced his yearly course.

c12.14

∗ Ait. Br. i. 7. A similar tradition about Orion is narrated in Greek mythology. It is stated that having lost his sight he followed a guide to the east in search of the sun and there, by, exposing his face to the rising sun, his sight was restored.

c12.15

∗ See Dr. Haug’s translation of the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa iv. 12, p. 279, note.

c12.16

∗ Aditi is here said to be the daughter of Daksha, also cf, Rig. vii. 66. 2. In Purânic traditions the 27 Nakshatras are said to be the daughters of Daksha who gave them to the moon. If we combine these two traditions Aditi would be at the head of all the Nakshatras, in the same way as Mrigashiras or the Krittikas headed the list in later times. There are again many legends in the Puranas, stating that everything was born from Aditi. We can account for all these facts if we place Aditi at the vernal equinox, when the calender was first fixed for the sacrificial purposes.

c12.17

The only other tradition I could find in the Vedic literature about this position of Aditi is the story of the asterismal Prajâpati given in the Taittirîya Brâhmaṇa (i 5. 2. 2).* The asterism of Chitrâ is here said to be the head of this Prajâpati, Svâti the heart, Hasta the hand, Vishâkhâ the thighs, and Anûrâdhâ the foot. Many conjectures are made about the meaning of this figure, but none of them satisfactorily explains why Prajâpati, who is said to be the god of time or the lustrum of years in the Vedânga Jyotisha, should have been represented in this way. I propose that we should interpret it after the manner of a similar representation of Brahman by Bâdarâyana, † wherein the different signs of the Zodiac are said to be similarly related to the different parts of the body of Brahman or the Creator. Prof. Max Müller has thus translated the verse :—" The ram is the head, the face of the Creator is the bull, the breast would be the man-pair, the heart the crab, the lion the stomach, the maid the hip, the balance-bearer the belly, the eighth (scorpion) the membrum, the archer his pair of thighs, the Makara his pair of knees, the pot his pair of legs, the fish his two feet."‡ Thus if Meṣha was Brahman's head when the Rashis were introduced Chitrâ could well be said to be the head of Prajâpati when the Chitrâ full-moon commenced the year. But though we can thus satisfactorily account for the fact why Chitrâ should have been called the head of Prajâpati, yet we cannot give an equally satisfactory reason in the case of one of the Nakshatras in this representation, unless we place three intercalary months in five years. It is, however, very difficult to determine how the intercalary months were inserted, if at all, at this remote period, and the question must therefore, to a certain extent, remain unsolved for the present. The analogy of the pictorial representation of the twelve signs of the Zodiac in later days, is, however, a strong ground to hold that the asterismal Prajâpati may have been similarly conceived when the primitive year was first determined on the Nakshatra system. There is, so far as I know, no more evidence about this primitive calendar in the Vedic works, than what has been given above. But the traces of such period which we can discover in the sacrificial literature and especially the express mention in Taittirîya Sanhitâ that the Chitrâ full-moon once commenced the year are, in my opinion, sufficient to prove the existence of such a calender in the primitive days. We cannot otherwise account why the first and last offerings in every sacrifice should be made to Aditi and why Abhijit-day should precede the Viṣhûvan by four days. Compared to the evidences of the Orion period, these are slender materials for the construction of the primitive Vedic calendar, but they are decidedly superior to the materials on which Dr. Geiger has determined the primitive calendar of the Iranians.

c12.18

∗ या वै नक्षत्रियं प्रजापतिं वेद । उभयोरेनं लोकयोर्विदुः । हस्त एवास्य हस्तः । चित्रा शिरः निष्ट्या हृदयं । उरू विशाखे । प्रतिष्ठानुराधाः । एष वै नक्षत्रियः प्रजापतिः ।

c12.19

† मेषः शिरोऽथ वदनं वृषभो विधातुः वक्षो भवेन्मिथुनं हृदयं कुलीरः । सिंहस्तथोदरमथो युवतिः कटिश्च वस्तिस्तुलाभुदय मेहनमष्टमः स्यात् ॥ धन्वीचास्योरुयुगं मकरो जानुद्वयं भवति । जंघाद्वयं कुंभः पादौ मत्स्यद्वयं चेति ॥

c12.20

‡ India; what it can teach us? pp. 322, 323.

c12.21

It appears to me therefore that the oldest Vedic calendar, like the oldest hymn, was sacrificial; and that the sacrifice or the year commenced with Aditi at the vernal equinox in or near Punarvasû. The phases of the moon, the seasons and the *ayanas* further guided the ancient Aryas in measuring time for sacrificial purposes. The asterism of Abhijit marked the approach of Viṣhûvân or the central day, while Punarvasû, which soon after came to be called Yamakau, perhaps Yama and Yamî, indicated the beginning of the year. Sometime after this and before the vernal equinox had receded to Orion, the lunar months and *tithis* or days appear to have come in use; and, in fact, the whole calendar seems to have been rearranged, the year being made to commence from the winter solstice in the Chitrâ full-moon. But this did not alter the sacrificial system, which, so far as the procedure is concerned, still continues to be what it was in the oldest days. For all civil purposes the new calendar was, however, at once adopted and the two systems have continued to exist side by side up to the present day, though in a considerably modified form, as described before in the second Chapter.

c12.22

The oldest period in the Aryan civilization may therefore be called the Aditi or the pre-Orion period, and we may roughly assign 6000-4000 B. C. as its limits. It was a period when the *finished* hymns do not seem to have been known and half-prose and half-poetical Nivids or sacrificial formulæ "giving the principal names, epithets, and feats of the deity invoked" were probably in use. The Greeks and the Parsis have retained no traditions of this period, for the simple reason that they carried with them only the calendar which was in force when they left the common home, while the Indian Aryas have preserved all the traditions with a super-religious fidelity and scrupulousness. It is thus that I explain why the oldest Greek and Parsi traditions do not go beyond Orion.

c12.23

We next come to the Orion piriod which, roughly speaking extended from 4000 B. C. to 2500 B. C., from the time when the vernal equinox was in the asterism of Ardra to the time when it receded to the asterism of the Krittikâs. This is the most important period in the history of the Aryan civilization. A good many sûktas in the Rigveda (e. g.. that of Vrishâkapi, which contains a record of the begining of the year where the legend was first conceived) were sung at this time, and several legends were either formed anew or developed from the older ones. The Greeks and the Parsis appear to have left the common home during the latter part of this period as they have retained most of these legends, and even the attributes of the constellation of Mrigashiras, otherwise called Agrayâṇa, Orion or the Pauryani. We can now easily understand why no confirmatory evidence about the Krittikâ-period is found either in the Rigveda or in the Greek and Parsi legends and traditions. This was pre-eminently the period of the hymns.

c12.24

The third of the Krittika-period commences with the vernal equinox in the asterism of the Krittikâs and extends up to the period recorded in the Vedânga Jyotisha, that is, from 2500 B. C to 1400 B. C. It was the period of the Taittirîya Sanhitâ and several of the Brâhmaṇas. The hymns of the Rigveda had already become antique and unintelligible by this time and the Brahmavâdins indulged in speculations, often too free, about the real meaning of these hymns and legends, attributing the use of the foamy weapon used by Indra to a compact between him and Namuchi. It was at this time that the Sanhitâs were probably compiled into systematic books and attempts made to ascertain the meanings of the oldest hymns and formulæ. It was also during this period that the Indians appear to have come in contact with the Chinese, and the latter borrowed the Hindu Nakshatra system. I do not mean to say that Hindus might not have improved their system by the mutual interchange of ideas as they did when they came to know of Greek astronomy. But the system was decidedly of Hindu origin and of purely Hindu origin being handed down from the remotest or the pre-Orion period in the Vedic literature. M. Biot was unable to assign any reason why the Chinese should have taken a leap from the shoulder to the belt of Orion to choose their fourth *sieu*. But with the older Hindu traditions the question admits of an easy explanation, as the belt was therein the real Mrigashiras or rather the top of Mriga's head.

c12.25

The fourth and the last period of the old Sanskrit literature extends from 1400 B. C. to 500 B. C. or to the birth and rise of Buddhism. It was the period of Sutras and philosophical systems. It may be called the real pre-Buddhistic period. But as this has been sufficiently discussed by other writers I need not go into its further details.

c12.26

I do not mean to lay down hard-and-fast limits of each of these periods of antiquity, nor do I intend to say anything about the period which must have elapsed before the Vedic Aryas were able to fix their calender in the Aditi period. The beginning of the Aryan civilization must undoubtedly be placed a long time before the people were able to conceive and determine the calender. But I do not wish to enter here into these speculations. I take my stand only upon what we find recorded in the Vedic works, and hence all that I mean is that if the astronomical allusions, references, facts, and legends in the Vedic works can have any meaning, we cannot materially shorten the periods I have here indicated. We may not rely on vague traditional beliefs amongst one nation alone, but when we find that the traditions of India, Greece, and Iran, agree in their important features, and can be explained satisfactorily only by placing the vernal equinox in Orion, and when we have an express authority for doing so in the Rigveda, I do not think that we can reasonably refuse to accept the conclusions deduced therefrom. It is true that we have determined the oldest Vedic periods from the traditions we find recorded in the Rigveda, and, strictly speaking, it is the periods of the traditions and not of the hymns into which they have been incorporated. But this does not, in my opinion, materially affect the conclusions we have arrived at above regarding the ancient period of the Vedic literature. I don't mean to deny that the hymns may not have been sung some time after these traditions and legends were originally conceived, or that after they were first sung the hymns might not have been somewhat modified *in form* in passing from mouth to mouth before they became settled in the form in which we now posses them. But though so much may be legitimately conceded, I think that it is impossible to hold that the hymns were composed thousands of years after the stories narrated in them were first conceived. For, as a matter of fact, we find that the Rigveda hymns had already become antiquated and unintelligible in the days of the Taittirîya Sanhitâ and the Brâhmaṇas. The Taittirîya Sanhitâ places the vernal equinox in the Kṛittikâs, and I have shown that we must fix its date at about 2500 B. C. If the hymns of the Rigveda Sanhitâ were unintelligible at this time, they must have been sung several centuries before it. The comparison of the Taittirîya with the Rigveda Sanhitâ further shows that while the first mentions three year-beginnings—one current and two old—the second only mentions one.

c12.27.1

Again, the Rigveda Sanhitâ contains no reference to the Krittikâs as the mouth of the Nakshatras. I therefore conclude that the legends in question must have been incorporated into the hymns of the Rigveda, when they were still intelligible, that is, in the Orion period. It is of course impossible to determine the dates of individual hymns. That all of them were not sung at one time is quite evident from their style. Some of the hymns distinctly speak of older hymns or bards, while in Rig. x. 99.9 the hymns are said to proceed directly from the *purusha* or the sacrificial personage. All that we can therefore legitimately say is that the hymns, which contain older traditions and legends, *e. g.*, of the Ribhus and Vrishakapi, must have been composed in the Orion period. Some of the hymns may even be still older and some later, but generally speaking we may suppose that 4000 and 2500 B. C. are the limits of this period. This may require us to assume the existence of some Vedic verses at a time when the Hindus, the Greeks and the Parsis lived together. Some scholars may hesitate to accept such a conclusion. But so far as I know the conclusion is not inconsistent with the results of comparative Philology or Mythology. Prof. Max. Müller in his *Biographies of Words* (pp.

c12.27.2

188-198) gives a list of about sixty mythological names which may be shewn to be common to Greek and Sanskrit.[*] If so many mythological names can be shewn to be phonetically identical it is impossible to suppose that no songs, celebrating the deeds of these deities, existed in the Indo-Germanic period. Westphal has already proved the existence of poetry in the Indo-Germanic period, and Dr. Kuhn has endeavoured to trace whole formulæ back to the beginning of Indo-European poetry. Verbal coincidences such as, Sk. *pada*, Av. *padha*, Gk. *pous*, all meaning a metrical foot, again point to the same conclusion.[*] The results of comparative Philology, are therefore, not only not inconsistent with, but, on the contrary, corroborate the conclusions we have independently deduced from the astronomical references and allusions recorded in the old Vedic literature. But I would not make my case rest on such grounds. It must be remembered that we have not been speculating in any way about the oldest Vedic periods. Our conclusions have been based on express statements and texts in the Vedic literature and unless the texts themselves are questioned or other more reasonable interpretations suggested, we shall not be justified in disregarding these results, simply because they do not support certain literary hypotheses, guesses, or conjectures, as for instance, those that have been previously referred to in the first chapter. The results of the literary method may be moderate.

c12.27.3

But moderation is a virtue only when we have to make guesses about the periods of antiquity from uncertain data. Where however we have definite texts and traditions to rely upon, nothing but prejudice can deter us from drawing legitimate conclusions from them on the ground that they take us too far back. The astronomical method, I admit, is vague, in so far as it does not enable us to determine the exact date of *all* the Vedic hymns or works, but it is certainly superior to the linguistic method inasmuch as it supplies us with certain definite and undisputed facts, for instance, the position of the equinoxes which can safely be made the nuclei of the different periods of antiquity. When the centres of each period are thus indisputably fixed and determined, we can then use the literary or the linguistic method to supplement these results by determining the duration of each period. There would then be no real opposition between the two methods. The one would determine the specific points of time, while the other would give us the range of the different periods. In other words, the first would supply the piers and the second the arches of the bridge, which we mean to construct across the period of antiquity, and which must therefore be completed with the assistance of both.

c12.28

∗ For instance *Ribhu* is compared to Greek Orpheus, Saramâ to Gk. Elenes, Vritra to Gk. Orthros, Dâsahantar to Gk. Deophentes. I have already referred to his suggestion regarding the comparison of *Vrishâkapi* with Gk. *Erikapaeos*. If all these deities existed in the Indo Germanic perio d, why not their hymns ?

c12.29

∗ See Dr. Schrader's Pre-historic Antiquities of Aryan Peoples, Part I., Chap. II., pp. 27, 28.

c12.30

It may, however, be urged that if the beginning of the year was twice altered owing to the precession of the equinoxes, how is it that we do not find the traces of the intermediate stages or of the changes in the seasons in the old Vedic works? How, it may be further asked, did the Indian Aryas not discover the precession of the equinoxes in the early Vedic times? But it is not at all difficult to answer these questions. We might as well ask how no one before Bhâskarâchârya or Newton ever thought of the attraction of the earth, though since the very beginning of the human race every one observed heavy objects falling down to the surface of the earth. The reason is plain enough. Celestial and natural phenomena cannot be fathomed or understood without a steady and close observation for centuries, and, above all, until all the auxiliary, or rather the whole group of sciences are proportionally developed. If we bear this circumstance in mind, we can, I am sure, discover sufficient traces of the intermediate changes in the Vedic works. Thus we find that of all the ancient nations the Hindus alone had well nigh accurately determined the rate of the motion of the precession of the equinoxes. Hipparchus considered it to be not less than 36", while the actual motion at present is 50".25 per year. Ptolemy adopted, as observed by Prof. Whitney, the minimum of 36" determined by Hipparchus; and it is evident that the Hindu astronomers who fixed the rate at 54" per year could not have borrowed it from the Greeks. Prof. Whitney is at a loss to understand how the Hindus succeeded in arriving at a determination of the rate of motion, so much more accurate than was made by the great Greek astronomer, and he observes that it might be a "lucky hit on their part."* But why should they try to hit, even luckily, when they could have easily borrowed it from the Greeks? I am therefore disposed to think that it was independently, and almost correctly, discovered by the Hindus long before other nations could do so, though we cannot exactly fix the period when it was done; and that there were sufficient materials for the purpose in the old literature of India.

c12.31

Let us next see what traditions about the intermediate stages have been preserved. First of all I refer to the tradition of Rudra killing Prajâpati, the god of time, for receding towards his daughter Rohiṇī. The Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (iii. 33) describes this conduct of Prajâpati as akṛita or unprecedented and such as deserved to be severely noticed by the gods. Can we not herein discover the fact that the sun was gradually receding towards Rohiṇī, by the precession of the equinoxes? The ancient priests, who observed the fact as they watched the Nakshatras at the commencement of the year, could not account for the change, and they rightly and honestly believed that it was a great calamity that the sun or Prajâpati should thus follow an unprecedented course. I have previously referred to a verse from Garga,* which says that if the Uttarâyaṇa commenced otherwise than from the asterism of Dhaniṣṭhâ it foretold a great danger; and we may suppose that the Vedic Aryas similarly believed that if the sun ceased to commence the year from Orion, it was an unpecedented calamity. Prajâpati, however, was punished for his unusual conduct, and there the matter ended for the time being I may also refer here to the ancient mode of deriving the word Rohiṇi. The Arabs called it Al-Dabaran or "the follower" evidently because it came next after the Kṛttikâs.† But the Hindus called it Rohiṇi, "the ascended" inasmuch as they noticed that the sun gradually ran towards it in oldest days. It has been suggested that we should explain the legend of Prajâpati by reference to the daily rising of Rohiṇi, Mṛigashiras, and Rudra in succession. But this explanation hardly accounts for the fact why Prajâpati was considered as literally running after Rohiṇi in an unprecedented way. Surely we cannot suppose that the Vedic priests were ignorant of the fixed position of these constellations, and if so, we cannot account for the fact why they considered Prajâpati as running after and thinking of living together with Rohiṇi unless they had noticed the actual recession of the sun towards Rohiṇi owing to the equinoxes. The tradition of Prajâpati and Rudra is thus comparatively speaking a later tradition though it seems to have been completely formed before the separation of the Greeks and the Parsis from the Indian Aryas.

c12.32

∗ See Whitney's notes to the Sūrya Siddhānta, iii, 13., p. 105.

c12.33

∗ See supra, Chapter II, p. 19. † See Whitney's notes to Sûrya Sid., viii, 9., p. 185.

c12.34

But the question, which was dropped at this time after punishing Prajâpati, was again taken up when the equinox had receded to the Kṛittikâs. The seasons had fallen back by one full month and the priests altered the year-beginning from the Phalgunî to the Maghâ full-moon, while the list of the Nakshatras was made to commence from the Kṛittikâs, instead of from Agrahâyaṇa. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the change should have been quietly introduced when we see that Varâhamihira did the same in the fifth century after Christ when the Ashvinî system was introduced.* The calendar was mainly used for the sacrificial purposes, and when the priests actually observed that the sun was in the Kṛittikâs, and not in Mṛigashiras, when day and night were equal, they altered the commencement of the year to the Kṛittikâs, especially as it was more convenient to do so at this time when the cycle of seasons had receded by one full month. The priests knew that the year commenced a month earlier in older days, but like Varâhamihira they must have appealed more to the actual facts, as they saw them, and introduced the change without attempting to discover its real cause.

c12.35

The Vedâṅga Jyotiṣa introduces the third change, when the seasons had further fallen back, not by a month, but by a fortnight. It was probably during this interval that the beginning of the month was altered from the full-moon to the new-moon, and when this beginning of the month was so altered, advantage was taken of the receding of the seasons by a fortnight, to commence the year with the new-moon in Dhaniṣṭhâ as the Vedâṅga Jyotiṣa has done.

c12.36

From this the next recorded step is to Ashvinî. There is, however, an interesting story related in the Mahâbhârata which evidently refers to an abortive attempt to reform the calender when the seasons had again fallen back by a fortnight. In the 71st chapter of Âdiparva we are told that Visvâmitra attempted to create a new world,* and make the Nakshatras commence with Shravaṇa, instead of Dhaniṣṭha; and the same story is alluded to in the Ashvamedha Parva, chapter 44. The tradition can also be found in other Purâṇas where Visvâmitra is represented as endeavouring to create a new celestial sphere. It appears, however, that he did not succeed, and the Krittika-system, as modified by the Vedânga Jyotiṣa, continued to regulate the calendar until the list of the Nakshatras was quietly made to begin, as noticed in the third chapter, with Ashvini in later times.

c12.37

∗ See *supra* Chap. III. p. 36.

c12.38

We have thus an almost continuous record of the year-beginnings from the oldest time down to the present in the literature of India, and in the face of this evidence it is useless to indulge in uncertain speculations about the antiquity of the Vedas. I have already referred to the occurrence of the pitṛi-pakṣa in Bhâdrapada as a relic of the time when the year commenced with the Phalguni-full-moon. Our Shrâvaṇi ceremony appears to have been once performed in Bhâdrapada (Manu iv. 95 ); and as it marked the beginning of the rains, when the herbs appear anew (Âshvâlâyana Gṛihya Sûtra iii. 5, 2), we can here trace the recession of the rainy season from Bhâdrapada to Shrâvaṇa and from Shrâvaṇa to Âṣhâḍha (Sânkhyâyana Brâhmaṇa i. 3) and finally from Âṣhâḍha to Jyeṣhṭha, as at present, thus fully corroborating the recession of the beginning of the year or the winter solstice from Chaitra to Phâlguna, from Phâlguna to Mâgha, and from Mâgha to Pauṣha. The evidence of the recession of the seasons is not, however, as complete as that of different year-beginnings, inasmuch as there are various local causes besides the precession of the equinoxes that affect the ocurrence of the seasons. The seasons in the Central India and Central Asia cannot, for instance, be the same, and if the Aryas came into India from the North-West, the very change of locality must have caused a corresponding change in the seasons. The evidence of the change of seasons cannot therefore be supposed to be so reliable and conclusive as that of the successive changes in the beginning of the year above mentioned.

c12.39

∗ Mahâ. Adi. 71, 34. चकारान्यं च लोकं वै क्रुद्धो नक्षत्रसंपदा। प्रतिश्रवणपूर्वाणि नक्षत्राणि चकार सः॥ and again in the Ashv. 44. 2. अहः पूर्वं ततो रात्रिः मासाः शुक्लादयः स्मृताः। श्रवणदीनि ऋक्षाणि ऋतवः शिशिरादयः॥

c12.40.1

Lastly, there remains only one question to be considered. Is the Vedic period here determined consistent with the traditions and opinions entertained about it by the ancient and modern scholars? I think it is. I have already referred to the remarks of Prof. Weber who, though he regards the Kṛittikâ evidence as vague and uncertain, yet on geographical and historical grounds arrives at the conclusion that the beginnings of the Indian literature may be traced back to the time when the Indian and the Iranian Aryas lived together; and this opinion is confirmed by the fact that there are Yashts in the Zend Avesta which may be considered as "reproductions" of the Vedic hymns. Dr. Haug considers that this condition may be satisfied if we place the beginning of the Vedic literature in 2400 B. C.,* but he was not cognisant of the fact that the vernal equinox can be shown to have been in Mṛgashiras at the time when the Parsis and the Indians lived together. In the light of this new evidence, there is therefore no reasonable objection for carrying the periods of the Vedic literature further back by over a thousands years or to about 4000 B. C. This period is further consistent with the fact that in 470 B. C. Xanthos of Lydia considered Zoroaster to have lived about 600 years before the Trojan War (about 1800 B. C.); † for according to our calculation the Parsis must have separated from the Indian Aryas in the latter part of the Orion period, that is to say, between 3000 to 2500 B. C.;

c12.40.2

while, if we suppose that the separation occurred at a considerably later date, a Greek writer in the fifth century before Christ would certainly have spoken of it as a recent event. Aristotle and Eudoxus have gone still further and placed the era of Zoroaster as much as 6000 to 5000 years before Plato. The number of years here given is evidently traditional, but we can at any rate infer from it this much that at the time of Aristotle (about 320 B. C.) Zoroaster was considered to have lived at a very remote period of antiquity; and if the era of Zoroaster is to be considered so old, *a fortiori*, the period of the Vedas must be older still. Then we have further to consider the fact that an epic poem was written in Greek in about 900 or 1000 B. C. The language of this epic is so unlike that of the Vedic hymns that we must suppose it to have been composed long time after the Greeks left their ancient home and travelled westward. It is not, therefore, at all improbable that they separated after the formation of the legends of Orion and before the vernal equinox was in the Kṛittikās, that is, between 3500 to 3000 B. C. Finally we can easily understand how the acutest and most learned of Indian theologians and scholars believed the Vedas to have come down to them from an unknown period of antiquity. A revelation need not necessarily be *anādi*, or without a beginning.

c12.40.3

The history of the Bible and the Koran shows us that a revelation can be conceived to be made at a particular period of time. If so, the mere fact that it is believed to be revealed does not account for the opinion entertained by the Hindu theological writers that the Veda has come down to them from times beyond the memory of man. Some of these writers lived several centuries before Christ, and it is quite natural to suppose that their opinions were formed from traditions current in their times. The periods of the Vedic antiquity we have determined render such an explanation highly probable. According to the Christian theology, the world was created only about 4000 years before Christ; or, in other words, the notions of antiquity entertained by these Christian writers could not probably go beyond 4000 B. C., and not being able to say anything about the period preceding it, they placed the beginning of the world at about 4000 B. C. The Indian theologians may be supposed to have acted somewhat in the same manner. I have shewn that the most active of the Vedic period commenced at about 4000 B. C., and there are grounds for carrying it back still further. The *form* of the hymns might have been more or less modified in later times;

c12.40.4

but the *matter* remained the same, and coming down from such a remote antiquity it could have been easily believed by Jaimini, Pânini, and the Brahmâvadin of old to have been in existence almost from the beginning of the world, or rather the beginning of all known things. We can thus satisfactorily account for all the opinions and traditions current about the age of the Vedas amongst ancient and modern scholars in India and in Europe, if we place the Vedic period at about 4000 B. C, in strict accordance with the astronomical references and facts recorded in the ancient literature of India. When everything can thus be consistently explained, I leave it to scholars to decide whether the above period should or should not be accepted as determining, as correctly as it is possible to do under the circumstances, the oldest period of Aryan civilization. It is the unerring clock of the heavens that has helped us in determining it, and it is, in my opinion, hardly probable to discover better means for the purposes. The evidence was in danger of being obliterated out of the surface of the heavens, when the Greeks borrowed their astronomical terminology from the Egyptians. But it has fortunately escaped and outlived, not only this, but also another threatened attack when it was proposed in England and Germany to name the constellation of Orion after Nelson or Napoleon as a mark of respect for these heroes.

c12.40.5

The bold and brilliant Orion, with his attendant Canis, preserves for us the memory of far more important and sacred times in the history of the Aryan race.

c12.41

∗ Dr. Haug's Intr. to Ait. Br., p. 48.

c12.42

† See Dr. Haug's Essays on Parsis, p. 298.

c12.43

PRINTED AT THE LALKA PRINTING AND LITHO WORKS, BOMBAY.

Linked texts (13)