The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c6.32

c6.32

Opinions differ as to whether the lunar month began with the full or the new moon,[*] and whether the original number of Nakshatras was 27 or 28.[†] But I pass over these and similar other points as not very relevant to my purpose, and take up next the question of the commencement of the year. I have already stated that the sacrifice and the year were treated as synonymous in old days, and we may, therefore, naturally expect to find that the beginning of the one was also the beginning of the other. The Vedânga Jyotisha makes the year commence with the winter solstice, and there are passages, in the Shrauta Sûtras which lay down that the annual sacrifices like *gavâm-ayanu*, should be begun at the same time.[‡] A tradition has also been recorded by Jaimini and others that all *Deva* ceremonies should be performed§ only during the Uttarâyaṇa; and the Uttarâyaṇa, according to the several Jyotisha works,[||] is the period of the year from the winter to the summer solstice, that is, from the time when the sun turns towards the north till it returns towards the south. This leads one to suppose that the winter solstice was the beginning of the year and also of the Uttarāyaṇa at the time when the annual sacrifices were established, and therefore in the old Vedic days. But a closer consideration of the ceremonies performed in the yearly satras will show that the winter solstice could not have been the original beginning of these satras. The middle day of the annual satra is called the Viṣhuvân day, and it is expressly stated that this central day divides the satra into two equal halves, in the same way as the Viṣhuvân or the equinoctial day divides the year.[*] The satra was thus the imitation of the year in every respect, and originally it must have corresponded exactly with the course of the year. Now, as Viṣhuvân literally means the time when day and night are of equal length, if we suppose the year to have at the time commenced with the winter solstice, the Viṣhuvân or the equinoctial day could never have been its central day, and the middle day of the satra would correspond, not with the equinoctial, as it should, but with the summer solstice. It might be urged that Viṣhuvân as referring to the satra should be supposed to be used in a secondary sense. But this does not solve the difficulty. It presupposes that Viṣhuvân must have been used at one time in the primary sense (i. e., denoting the time when day and night are equal), and if in its primary sense it was not used with reference to the satra, it must have been so used at least with reference to the year. But if Viṣhuvân was thus the central day of the year, the year must have once commenced with the equinoxes. The word *uttarāyaṇa* is again susceptible of two interpretations. It may mean "turning towards the north from the southernmost point," or it may indicate "the passage of the sun into the northern hemisphere, *i. e.*, to the north of the equator." If we adopt the first meaning, the Uttarāyaṇa and the year must be held to commence from the winter solstice, while if the second interpretation be correct, the Uttarāyaṇa and the year must have once commenced with the vernal equinox. The facts, that the central day of the annual *satra* was called *viṣuvān*, that Vasanta or spring was considered to be the *first of the seasons*,* and that the *āgrayaneṣṭis* or the half-yearly sacrifices were required to be performed every Vasanta (spring) and Sharad (autumn)† clearly shew that the second of the two interpretations given above is more likely to be the older one. Let us, however, examine the point more fully.