The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c5.16

Language: English

c5.16.1

It appears to me that scholars have erred too much on the side of overcautiousness in condemning this method. I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties; but sufficient care does not appear to have been taken to always keep in view the main point of the inquiry, by separating it from the mass of irrelevant matter, with which, in some cases, it becomes unavoidably mixed up. Some of Bentley's speculations, for instance, are indeed ingenious and suggestive, but he relies too much upon Purāṇic traditions, mere etymological speculations and his own calculations based thereon, instead of trying to find out whether there is anything in the earlier works to corroborate or support these traditions. On the other hand, Prof. Weber's Essay, which, as a collection of astronomical allusions and references in the Vedic literature, is extremely valuable, is taken up by the controversy as to the origin of the Nakshatras raised by M. Biot; and the same thing may be said of Prof. Whitney's contributions on the subject.[‡] Various other questions, such as whether the Vedic cycle comprised five or six years, how and when the intercalary days or months were inserted to make the lunar correspond with the solar year, have also caused the attention of scholars to be diverted from the broad astronomical facts and observations to be found recorded in the Vedic literature;

c5.16.2

and as a consequence we find that while the questions as to the original number of the Nakshatras and as to whether the Chinese borrowed them from the Hindus or *vice versa*, are so ably discussed, no systematic attempt has been made to trace back the astronomical references in the later works to the Sanhitâs, and to fully examine their bearing on the question of the age and character of the Vedas. On the contrary, Prof. Weber asks us to reconcile ourselves to the fact that any such search will, as a general rule, be absolutely fruitless!* In the following pages I have endeavoured to shew that we need not be so much disappointed. In my opinion there is ample evidence—direct and circumstantial—in the earliest of the Sanhitâs, to fully establish the high antiquity assigned to the Indian literature on geographical and historical grounds.† I base my opinion mainly upon references to be found in the early Vedic works, the Sanhitâs and the Brâhmanas, and especially in the earliest of these, the Rigveda. For though later works may sometimes give the same traditions and references, yet any inference which is based upon them is likely to be regarded with more or less suspicion, unless we can show something in the earliest works themselves to justify that inference.

c5.16.3

Where the Sanhitâs and the Brâhmaṇas directly speak of the actual state of things in their time, there is, of course, no ground to disbelieve the same, but I think that even the traditions recorded in these works are more reliable than those in later works, for the simple reason that those traditions are there found in their purest form. Later works may indeed be used to supply confirmatory evidence, where such is available; but our conclusions must in the main be based on the internal evidence supplied by the Vedic works alone. Several Indian astronomers have worked more or less on the lines here indicated, but their labours in this direction have not unfortunately received the attention they deserve. The late Kṛiṣhṇa Shàstri Goḍbole published his views on the antiquity of the Vedas in the second and third Volumes of the *Theosophist*,* and though he has failed to correctly interpret some astronomical allusions in the Vedic works, yet there is much that is suggestive and valuable in his essay. The late Prof. K. L. Chhatre also appears to have held similar views on the subject, but he has not published them, so far as I know, in a systematic form. My friend Mr. Shankara Bâlkṛiṣhṇa Dikshit, who has written a prize essay in Marâṭhî on the history of Hindu Astronomy, and who has succeeded in correctly interpreting more verses in the Vedâṅga Jyotiṣhat than any other scholar has hitherto done, has also discussed this question in his essay, which I was allowed to read in MS.

c5.16.4

through his kindness. I am indebted to these scholars for some of the facts and arguments set forth in the following pages, and the present essay may, I think, be regarded as greatly developing, if not completing, the theory started by them.