The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c12.17

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.