Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c8: Chapter IV. Agrahâyana

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV. Agrahâyana

c8.2

Phâlgunî full-moon, the new year's night—Sâyana's explanation unsatisfactory—Phâlguna could not be a Vasanta month—Two fold character of the seasons, lunar and solar, superfluous—Discussion of a passage in Shushruta—Bhâskara Bhatta's explanation.—Winter solstice on the full-moon in Phâlguna—The position of other cardinal points Vernal quinox in Mrigashiras—*Agrahâyani*—Native Lexicographers' explanation of the word—Grammatically objectionable—Its real meaning according to Pânini—Erroneous rank of Mârgashirsha amongst months according to the Bhagavad Gîtâ and Amara—Mârgashirsha could not have been the first month of the solstitial or the equinoctial year—It leads to the libration of the equinoxes—Possible reason of the libration theory—Mrigashiras—*Agrahâyana* or the first Nakshatra in the year—Mûla, its primary meaning—Evidence of the summer solstice occuring in Bhâdrapada—Origin of the annual feasts to the manes amongst Hindus and Parsis—Comparison of the primitive Hindu and Parsi calender—Summary of results.

c8.3

THE passage from the Taittirîya Samhitâ quoted in the last chapter states that the Chitrâ and Phâlgunî full-moons were the beginnings of the year, which then commenced with the winter solstice in the month of Mâgha. The words used in the original are *Chitrâ-pūrṇa-māsa* and *Phalgunî pūrṇa-māsa* and these must be understood to denote, not the Chaitra and the Phâlguna months, whether sidereal and synodical, as Prof. Weber seems to have, in one case, supposed, but the full-moon days in each of these months. This is evident from the fact that these have been recommended as alternative times for the commencement of the *satra* in opposition to the Ekâshtakâ day. In the case of the *Phalguni-pūrṇa-māsa* we are further told that Vishuvân counted from that time falls during the rainy season, and it is impossible to suppose that Viṣhûvân can be counted from a month. The whole context, therefore, shows that it is a discussion as to the particular day best suited to commence the yearly sacrifice, and that Chitrâ-pûrṇa-mâsa and Phalguni-pûrṇa-mâsa must mean the days when the moon is full near the asterisms of Chitrâ and Phalguni. In the Tâṇḍya Brâhmaṇa* Phalguni-pûrṇa-mâsa is rendered by Phalguni and Jaimini has paraphrased Chitrâ-pûrṇa-mâsa by Chaitri and Phalguni and Chaitri, according to Pâṇini (iv. 2. 3), are the names of days These interpretations have been accepted by all the Mimânsakas including Sâyaṇa, and we may do the same especially as there are several passages in the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ where pûrṇa-mâsa is used in a similar sense.†

c8.4

But why should the Chitrâ and the Phalguni full-moon be called the beginnings of the year? Sâyaṇa thinks that they were so described because they occurred during Vasanta or the first of the seasons.‡ But the explanation does not appear satisfactory. I have previously shown that according to all astronomical works Shishira commenced with the winter solstice, and that the three seasons of Shishira, Vasanta and Grīshma were comprised in the Uttarâyaṇa as it was then understood. Now in the days of the Taittirīya Sanhitâ the winter solstice, as shown in the last chapter, fell in the month of Mâgha; and Mâgha and Phâlguna were therefore comprised in Shishira, and Chaitra and Vaishâkha in Vasanta. But in order that Sâyaṇa's explanation might be correct Phâlguna must fall in the Vasanta season which, as a matter of fact, it did not. In his commentary on the Baudhâyana Sûtras* and also in the Kâlamâdhavat Sâyaṇa tries to get over this difficulty by proposing a double Vasanta—lunar and solar, the lunar to include the months of Phâlguna and Chaitra, and the solar those of Chaitra and Vaishâkha, quoting amongst others, Rig. x., 85, 18, as an authority to show that the seasons were regulated by the moon. The authorities, however, are not explicit and therefore sufficient to maintain the two-fold character of the seasons; nor do I see the necessity of the two-fold character. It is true that the months in the calendar were all lunar, but the concurrence of the lunar and the solar year was always secured by inserting an intercalary month whenever necessary. Under such a system lunar seasons can have no permanent place. Now and then lunar months ceased, as they now do, to correspond with the seasons they represented, but this was at once set aright by the introduction of an intercalary month. If we, therefore, exclude the correction due to the precession of the equinoxes, which was too minute to be noticed till after hundreds of years, there was thus no reason why the lunar seasons should come to be regarded as a permanent institution. But even accepting Sâyaṇa's two-fold character of the seasons, it can be easily shewn that it does not support his conclusions. A lunar year is shorter than a solar year by 11 days. If the solar Vasanta, therefore, commences on the 1st day of the lunar Chaitra month this year, it will commence on the 12th day of Chaitra (lunar) next year and 11 days later still in the third year when by the introduction of an intercalary month the commencement of Vasanta will be again brought back to the 1st day of Chaitra. The two-fold character of the seasons may thus delay the beginning of Vasanta to Vaishâkha (lunar), but the season cannot be accelerated and brought back to Phâlguna. It is true that in the day of Sâyaṇa (14th century) Vasanta commenced, as it does now, in the month of Phâlguna; but it was so because the winter solstice had receded by over full one month by that time. Sâyaṇa does not appear to have fully realised the reason of this change and combining the occurrence of Vasanta in Phâlguna in his time with the occurrence of the same season in Chaitra in the days of the Taittirîyâ Sanhitâ and other works he attempted to reconcile the difference on the theory of the two-fold character of the seasons. But we can now better understand the change as due to the precession of the equinoxes, and must, in consequence, reject Sâyaṇa's explanation as unsatisfactory.

c8.5

∗ See the passages quoted in the last chapter. † In Taitt. Saṃ. ii 2. 10. 1. we find तिष्यापूर्णमास similarly used; In i. 5. 10. 3. दर्शपूर्णमासौ are mentioned together; while in ii. 5. 4. 1. पूर्णमास and अमावास्या are contrasted. ‡ In his commentary on Taitt. Saṃ. vii. 4. 8. speaking of फल्गुनीपूर्णमास Sâyaṇa observes तस्य च भविष्यत्सरोंपक्रमदिनत्वात् । एतदेवाभिप्रेत्याधानब्राह्मणे समाम्नातं । उत्तरयोरादधीत । एषा वै प्रथमा रात्रिः संवत्सरस्य यदुत्तरे फल्गुनीति । while of चित्रापूर्णमास he says: - सोऽपि वसंतंमध्यपातिसंवत्सरस्य मुखमेव ।

c8.6

∗ The passage is quoted in India: what it can teach us? p. 323; Sâyaṇa there quotes Taitt. San. vii. 4. 8., and after noticing that the Chitrâ and the Phalgunî full moon are both said to begin the year, he observes :—अथवा फाल्गुनचैत्रौ वसंतः मुखं वा एतत्संवत्सरस्य यत्फाल्गुनीपूर्णमास इति श्रुतेः। एवं च सौरचांद्रभेदभिन्नं वसंतद्वयमुपसंगृहीतं भवति। The theory of the two fold seasons thus appears to have been started simply to reconcile the two statements about the Chitrâ and Phalgunî full moons.

c8.7

† See Cal. Ed., pp. 60, 61.

c8.8

The only other authority I can find for supposing that Phâlguna was a Vasanta month is the statement in Shushruta's medical work, that " Phâlguna and Chaitra make Vasanta." But on a closer examination of the passage wherein this sentence occurs, it will be found to bear on its face the marks of later insertion. There are two consecutive paragraphs in Shushruta, each enumerating and describing the seasons of the year. The first states that "There the twelve months, beginning with Mâgha, make six seasons, comprising two months each. They are Shishira, &c........Of these Tapa and Tapasya make Shishira " and so on until all the six seasons in their usual order, the *ayanas*, the year and the lustrum are described; and at the end we have " this is called the wheel of time by some."* The second paragraph then begins with the words " *But here* " and continues to state " But here the six seasons are,—Varshâ, Sharad, Hemanta, Vasanta, Grîshma and Prâvrish," thus altogether dropping Shishira and dividing the rainy period into two seasons Varshâ and Prâvrish. The paragraph then proceeds to assign the months to the seasons as follows :—" Bhâdrapada and Âshvina is Varshâ, Kârtika and Mârgashîrsha is Sharad, Pausha and Mâgha is Hemanta, and Phâlguna and Chaitra is Vasanta;" and so on until

c8.9

∗ See Shushruta, Sûtrasthâna Adhyâya 6. The two consecutive paragraphs here referred to are:—

c8.10

तत्र माघादयो द्वादश मासा द्विमासिकमृतुं कृत्वा षड्ऋतवो भवंति। ते शिशिरवसंतग्रीष्मवर्षाशरद्धेमंताः। तेषां तपस्तपस्यौ शिशिरः। . . . . अयने द्वे भवतः। दक्षिणमुत्तरं च। तयोर्दक्षिणं वर्षाशरद्धेमंताः . . . . । स एष निमेषादियुगपर्यंतः कालश्चक्रपरिवर्तमानः कालचक्रमुच्यत इत्येके।

c8.11

इह तु वर्षाशरद्धेमंतवसंतग्रीष्मप्रावृषः षड्ऋतवो भवंति ।...। ते तु भाद्रपदाधेन द्विमासिकेन व्याख्याताः। तद्यथा। भाद्रपदाश्वयुजौ वर्षाः। कार्तिकमार्गशीर्षौ शरत्। पौषमाघौ हेमंतः। फाल्गुनचैत्रौ वसंतः। वैशाखज्येष्ठौ ग्रीष्मः। आषाढश्रावणौ प्रावृडिति। all the months are assigned to their respective seasons. The second paragraph, however, makes no mention of the *ayanas*, the year, or the lustrum. It is therefore evident that the writer of the second paragraph, whosoever he may be, wished to note that the seasons and their corresponding months mentioned in the first paragraph had ceased to represent the actual state of things in the writer's time and province, and not thinking it desirable or possible to expunge or correct the old paragraph, he added immediately after it a second paragraph describing the seasons as he saw them. The words "*but here*" at its beginning, the assignment of four months to the rainy season, but under two different names of Prâvṛiṣh and Varshâ, to keep up the old *number* of the seasons, and the absence of any reference to the *ayanas*, the year and the lustrum described in the previous paragraph—all point to the conclusion that the second paragraph is of later origin and inserted with a view only to note the changes in the occurrence of events described in the paragraph next preceding it. It might be contended that the second paragraph is that of Shushruta who notices the old order of things in the first. But I need not go into that question here. For in either case it is plain that the passage wherein Phâlguna and Chaitra are assigned to Vasanta is the production of a later writer, whosoever he may be whether Shushruta or any one else, and as far as our present inquiry is concerned we cannot take the passage as an authority for holding that Phâlguna was a Vasanta month in the days of the Taittiriya Sanhitâ. I may however remark, that Vâgbhaṭa who professes to summarise the works of Shushruta and Charaka gives the order and description of seasons as we find it in the first paragraph in Shushruta,[*] without alluding to the changes noted in the second paragraph. We may, therefore, suppose that either the paragraph did not exist in Vâgbhaṭa's time or that he did not regard it as genuine.

c8.12

∗ Aṣhṭângahṛidaya Sûtrasthâna iii. 1., “मासैर्द्विसंस्थैर्नाघाद्यैः क्रमात् षड्ऋतवः स्मृताः। शिशिरोऽथ...।”

c8.13

There is thus no reliable authority, that I am aware of, for holding that Phâlguna, in the days of the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ, was a Vasanta month, and Sâyaṇa's explanation does not in consequence hold good at least in this case. The explanation is further inconsistent with the fact that in several Brâhmaṇas and Sûtras the full-moon night in the month of Phâlguna has been pronounced to be the *first night* of the year. The Shatapatha Brâhmaṇa (vi. 2. 2. 18) says "the Phâlgunî full-moon is the first night of the year." The Taittirîya (i. 1, 2, 8) and the Sânkhyâyana (iv. 4 and v. 1)* Brâhmaṇas contain similar passages, while the Gopatha Brâhmaṇa (i. 19) after stating that the Uttarâ and the Pûrvâ Phalgunî are respectively the beginning and the end of the year, adds "just as the two ends of a thing meet so these two termini of the year meet together."† I have already quoted a passage from the Tâṇḍya Brâhmaṇa to the same effect. The Sûtra-writers, though not so explicit, do however distinctly state that the annual sacrifices "should be commenced either on the Chaitrî or the Phâlgunî full-moon night,"‡ thus clearly indicating that these were regarded as the beginnings of the year. If these passages mean anything, we must hold that the Phâlgunî full-moon night was once considered to be actually the first night of the year, or to put it in a modern form the new year's night. We cannot assign this position to it by simply assuming, as Sâyaṇa has done, that the night occured sometime during the two months of Vasanta. Sâyaṇa, it appears, was aware of this objection and so in commenting on the passage from the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ, quoted in the last chapter, he attempts to explain the position of the Phâlgunî night by reference to the above mentioned passages in the Brâhmaṇas; while with respect to the Chaitrî, he quietly observes that "this *too* is the mouth of the year as it falls during the season of Vasanta."* But an explanation that admittedly fails in one case must fail in the other, for the Chitrâ and the Phâlgunî nights are described together, in the *same* passage and in the *same* words, as the beginnings of the year.

c8.14

∗ एषा ह संवत्सरस्य प्रथमा रात्रिरथफाल्गुनी पौर्णमासी Shat. Br. vi. 2. 2. 18. एषा वै प्रथमा रात्रिः संवत्सरस्य यदुत्तरे फल्गुनी। मुखत एव संवत्सरस्याभिमाधाय वसीयान् भवति। Taitt. Br. i. 1. 2 8, मुखं वा एतत्संवत्सरस्य यत्फाल्गुनी पौर्णमासी। Sân. Br. iv. 4.

c8.15

† मुखमुत्तरे फल्गुनी पुच्छं पूर्वे। तद्यथाप्रवृत्तस्यांतौ समेतौ स्यातां। एवमेतत्संवत्सरस्यांतौ समेतौ भवतः।

c8.16

‡ तेषां (scil, सांवत्सरिकाणां) फाल्गुन्यां पौर्णमास्यां चैत्र्यां वा प्रयोगः। Âshvalâyana Shr. Su. i. 2. 14, 3; Kât. Shr. Su. v. 1. 1; Sân. Shr. Su. iii. 8. 1., xiii. 18. 3.

c8.17

It will be clear from the above, *first*, that the theory of the lunar seasons, started by Sâyaṇa to account for the position assigned to the Phâlgunî night in the Vedic works, cannot have a permanent place in the Vedic calendar; *secondly*, even accepting the theory, the beginning of the solar Vasanta might be put off to the month of (lunar) Vaishâkha, but could not be brought back to any day in Phâlguna; and *thirdly*, the express texts in the Brâhmaṇas declaring the Phâlgunî full-moon to be the new-year's night are inconsistent with Sâyaṇa's explanation. We must therefore look for some other solution.

c8.18

But if Sâyaṇa's explanation cannot be accepted, at least with respect to the Phâlgunî night, how are we to interpret the several passages in the Sanhitâ and the Brâhmanas given above? We cannot suppose that the Phâlgunî full-moon commenced the year at the vernal equinox; for then we shall have to place the vernal equinox in Uttarâ Bhâdrapadâ, which to render possible in the pre-Krittikâ period we must go back to something like 20,000 B. C. The only other alternative is to make the full-moon commence the year, at the winter solstice, and from the fact that the Mâghî, the Phâlgunî and the Chaitrî full-moons are mentioned together in the *same* passage of the Taittirîya Sanhitâ, and for the *same* purpose, I conclude that this is the real meaning of the passage in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ and those in the Brâhmanas. It is the most natural and reasonable interpretation of the passage and I find that Bhâskara Bhatta, who is older than Sâyana, fully adopts this view in his Bhâshya on the Taittirîya Sanhitâ.∗ I have however devoted so much space to the discussion of Sâyaṇa’s explanation as the high authority of that scholar is likely to mislead us in the interpretation of the passage. The Bhâṣya of Bhâskara Bhaṭṭa fully shews that Sâyaṇa is not here following any older tradition and the reasons given by him for explaining the position assigned to the Phalguni full-moon in the Vedic works are mere conjectures and guesses of his own. I admit that even the guesses of a scholar like Sâyaṇa deserve consideration. But when on a closer examination we find that they are not supported by any old traditions and are besides objectionable on various other grounds, I think we are bound to reject them. As observed by Bhâskara Bhaṭṭa the passage in the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ must, therefore, be understood as referring to an older year beginning, and we must hold that the full-moon in Phâlguna did as a matter of fact once commence the year at the winter solstice. I know that this view has been regarded as improbable by some scholars, on the sole ground that it would, if substantiated, enhance the antiquity of the Vedic works by about 2000 years more than what these scholars are willing to assign to them; and as the natural result of such prepossessions amongst the subject has till now remained uninvestigated. But I hope that they will patiently examine the evidence, direct and corroborative, which I intend to put forth in support of the suggestion and then give their judgment upon it. There is no *a priori* impossibility involved in the hypothesis that the old priests, after changing their starting point to the Kṛittikâs and framing the calendar accordingly, continued to recognize for sacrificial purposes, the older positions of the Nakṣatras, just as all Brâhmans from the Himâlaya to the Cape Comorin at present perform their sacrifices on days and at times fixed when the vernal equinox was in the Kṛittikâs. I think the present Brâhmans are worse off in this respect, inasmuch as they have not even the liberty, which the passage in the Taittirîya Sanhitâ accorded, though hesitatingly, to the old priests, of choosing either the old or the new calender. To use the words of Professor Max. Müller we must in such cases, therefore, "keep our preconceived notions of what people call primitive humanity in abeyance for a time,"* and form our judgment of antiquity, as we do of other facts, solely upon evidence.

c8.19

∗ See the original remark quoted *supra*. The word "too" in this explanation implies that it holds good also in the case of the Phâlgunî full-moon.

c8.20

∗ A MS. of Bhâskara Bhatta's Bhâshya on the Taittirîya Sanhitâ has been recently discovered at Mysore and through the kindness of Sir Sheshâdri Iyar, the Dewan of Mysore, I have been able to procure a copy of the Bhâshya on the passage here discussed. Bhâskara Bhatta after commenting on the first part of the passage which states that the sacrifice should be commenced on the Ekâshtakâ day, makes the following observation as regards the alternative next proposed :-एवं दूषयित्वा पक्षान्तरं परिगृह्णाति । फल्गुनीपूर्णमास इत्यादि । फल्गुन्या युक्तः पूर्णमासः फल्गुनीपूर्णमासः । मुखं वा इति । अत्र केचिदाहुः फाल्गुनादिः संवत्सर इति । तन्मते मुखत एव संवत्सरं परिगृह्य दीक्षा कृता भवति । As regards the third alternative proposed, viz. the Chitrâ full-moon Bhâskara Bhatta observes further on :-अतः पक्षान्तरं परिगृह्णाति । चित्रापूर्णमास इत्यादिगतं । चैत्रादिः संवत्सर इति येषां मतं तत इदानीमुच्यते । Finally Bhâskara Bhatta follows Jaimini and Shabara in the interpretation of the last part of the passage and concludes by observing the best time for the sacrifice is 4 days previous to the full-moon in Mâgha.

c8.21

∗ India: what it can teach us? p. 112.

c8.22

We have seen in the last chapter that the evidence for placing the vernal equinox in the Kṛittikâs consisted of (1) the lists of the Nakshatras all beginning with the Kṛittikâs, (2) the winter solstice then falling in the month of Mâgha, (3) the Nakshatra at the summer solstice being presided over by the pitṛis, and (4) the possibility of considering, as Bentley suggested, the portion of the Nakshatra at the autumnal equinox as divided by the equinoctial colure. In short, if the year was supposed to have begun in the month of Mâgha, the position of the four cardinal points of the ecliptic as referred to the Nakshatras, was consistent with, and so indirectly established the truth of, such a supposition. Let us see if we can produce similar evidence for establishing the hypothesis (for it is no better at present) that the year in the old Vedic days began, as stated in the Brâhmaṇas, with the Phâlgunî full-moon, and that the winter solstice occurred on that day. On a rough calculation the vernal equinox, must recede two divisional Nakshatras to make the seasons fall back by one month. If the winter solstice, therefore, occurred in the month of Phâlguna, one month in advance of Mâgha, in the old Vedic days, the vernal equinox must then have been in Mrigashiras or *two* Nakshatras in advance of the Krittikâs. Taking the data given in the Vedânga Jyotisha as his basis, the late Krishna Shâstri Godbole has thus calculated* the position of the four cardinal points of the ecliptic, when the winter solstice, as stated in the Brâhmanas, occurred on the full-moon day in the month of Phâlguna :—

c8.23

(1) The winter solstice in 3° 20' of the divisional Uttarâ Bhâdrapadâ ;

c8.24

(2) The vernal equinox in the beginning of Ârdrâ ;

c8.25

(3) The summer solstice in 10° of Uttarâ Phalgunî; and

c8.26

(4) The autumnal equinox in the middle of Mûla ;

c8.27

or giving up the system of reckoning by the divisional portions of the Zodiac, we have, roughly speaking, the winter solstice quite near the asterism of Uttarâ Bhâdrapadâ, the vernal equinox between the head and the right shoulder of Orion or about 3° east of Mrigashiras, the summer solstice at a distance of within 2° east of Uttarâ Phalgunî, and the autumnal equinox about 5° east of the asterism of Mûla. If we suppose the vernal equinox to coincide with Mrigashiras, the three other cardinal points are brought nearer to the fixed asterisms, and this appears to be the more probable position of the equinoxes and the solstices in those days. But without entering into these details, it will be evident from this that when the winter solstice fell on the Phalgunî full-moon the vernal equinox must be very near the asterism of Mrigashiras or two Nakshatras in advance of the Krittikâs. We have now to see what evidence there is in the Vedic works from which this old position of the four principal points in the ecliptic may be established.

c8.28

∗ See his essay on the Antiquity of the Vedas, p. 19.

c8.29.1

There appears to be no express passage in the Vedic works, which states that Mṛigashiras, like the Kṛittikâs was ever the mouth of the Nakshatras. But what is so lost may still be discovered, in the words of Prof. Max Müller, “hidden in the secret drawers of language.” Mṛigashiras may not be specifically described as the first of the Nakshatras; but the word *Agrahâyaṇî* which Amarsinha (i. 3. 23), gives as a synonym for Mṛigashiras, and which supplies, according to Pāṇini, a derivative word for the month of Mârgashîrsha tells the same tale. *Agrahâyaṇî* literally means “commencing the year;” and the question is how did the Nakshatra come to be so called? In explaining the formation of this word all native lexicographers begin by assuming that the full-moon in the month of Mârgashîrsha was the first night of the year, hence called *Agrahâyaṇî*, and as this full-moon occurred in the month of Mârgashîrsha the month itself was called *Agrahâyaṇika*. There is no grammatical inconsistency so far. But when these lexicographers further tell us that the Nakshatra itself was called *Agrahâyaṇî*, as Amarsinha has done, because the full-moon in the vicinity of that Nakshatra commenced the year in old days,[*] one feels that there is something wrong in this explanation. The ordinary course is to name the full-moon or any other day after the Nakshatra, as *Chaitrî*, *Pausham*, *Paushî*, &c (Pan. iv.

c8.29.2

2, 3), while in the present case the order is reversed and the Nakshatra, we are told, is named after the full moon. It is true that the lexicographers were, to a certain extent, compelled to adopt such a course, as they could not otherwise explain why *Agrahâyanî*, a term usually denoting a full-moon night, should have been given as a synonym for the Nakshatra of Mrigashiras by Amarsinha. But whatever their motive, we have now to see if their explanations, as well as the statement in Amara, are correct. Turning to Pânini we find no authority for this converse process. The word *Agrahâyanî* occurs in Pânini iv. 2, 22, which lays down the rule that the derivative names of months are formed from *Agrahâyanî* and *Ashwattha*, by the addition of *thak*,* as a necessary termination; and this gives us the words *Agrahâyanika* and *Ashwatthika* for the months of Mârgashîrsha and Âshvina. Now in the previous *sûtra* (iv. 2. 21) Pânini states that the names of the months are derived from the names of the full-moon days that occur in those months. It appears, therefore, that he understood *Agrahâyanî* to mean the full-moon and not the Nakshatra of Mrigashiras. The word *Agrahâyanî* occurs thrice in Pânini (iv. 2. 22; 3. 50; and v. 4. 110) and in all places it denotes the full-moon day. It is not, however, clear whether Pânini treated it as a word derived in the same manner as *Chaitrî*, &c.

c8.29.3

If we, however, rely on analogy there is every reason to hold that *Agrahâyanî*, like *Kârtikî* and *Phâlgunî*, may have been derived from *Agrahâyana*, and that this may originally be the name of the Nakshatra of Mrigashiras. This supposition derives support from the fact that if, like Amarsinha, we take *Agrahâyanî* as synonymous with the Nakshatra of Mrigashiras and follow the native grammarians in deriving this name of the Nakshatra from that of the full-moon, it is very difficult to account for the initial long vowel in Âgrahâyanî. All lexicographers derive the word from Agra and Hâyana combined in a Bahuvrîhi compound and afterwards adding the feminine termination; thus Agra + hâyana + î. But the feminine termination cannot be added without a previous suffix (an) which also gives the initial long vowel, as î is not a general feminine suffix, but is only used in special cases. We cannot get this an by Pânini iv, 2. 3, as Âgrahâyana is not the name of a Nakshatra according to Amarsinha. Various suggestions have, therefore, been made to account for the initial long vowel. Bhattoji suggests that we should obtain the long vowel by including Âgrahâyana in the Prajnâdi list (Pan. v. 4. 38); but in the Ganapâtha, the list is not said to be a ‘specimen list,’* nor is the word Âgrahâyana specifically included in the list there given. Boehtlingk and Roth in their dictionary obtain the long vowel by Pan. v. 4. 36; but here 36 may probably be a misprint for 38.

c8.29.4

Târânâtha in his Vâchaspatya obtains the long vowel by Pânini v. 2. 102, Vârtika 1; but Jyotsnâdi is not again expressly said to be a ‘specimen list.’ Bhânu Dikshita, the son of Bhattoji, in his commentary on Amara adopts his father's view and refutes that of Mukuṭa. The latter obtains the initial long vowel from the very fact that the word itself is so pronounced by Pânini in iv. 2. 22; but this gives us Âgrahâyanî as a ready made word at once, and Mukuṭa had to assign some reason why the word should have been again included in the Gaurâdi list in Pan. iv. 1. 41. Mukuṭa's explanation is that Pâṇini thereby intends to show that the feminine termination in Âgrahâyaṇî is not dropped in compounds. But Bhânu Dikṣhita replies by observing that the Gaurâdi list was never intended for the purpose and that as regards the accent we can get it otherwise. Bhânu Dikṣhita's own explanation or that of his father Bhaṭṭoji also dispenses with the necessity of including the word in the Gaurâdi list as they obtain the feminine suffix î by Pan. iv. 1. 15; and so in replying to Mukuṭa he observes at the end that the "inclusion of the word in the Gaurâdi list is questionable." Thus if we suppose Amarsinha to be correct and accept either Bhaṭṭoji's or Mukuṭa's derivation of Âgrahâyaṇî we shall have to hold that the word in question was either wrongly included or subsequently inserted in the Gaurâdi list and that Pâṇini, who knew the word, forgot to insert it in the Prajnâdi or the Jyotsnâdi list.

c8.29.5

Both the explanations are again open to the objection that in this instance the Nakshatra is named after the full-moon as against the usual method given by Pâṇini in iv. 2. 3.

c8.30

∗ See Bhânu Dikshita's commentary on Amar. i, 3, 23. He explains the word thus:—अग्रे हायनस्याः । मार्गशीर्षमारभ्य वर्षप्रवृत्तेः । प्रज्ञाद्यण् । पूर्णपदादिति णत्वम् । आग्रहायणी पौर्णमासी । तयोगान्नक्षत्रमपि तथा ।

c8.31

∗ The *sûtras* of Pânini referred to in this discussion are नक्षत्रेण युक्तः कालः (iv. 2. 3), सास्मिन्पौर्णमासीति संज्ञायाम् (iv. 2. 21), आग्रहायण्यश्वत्थाण्ठक् (iv. 2. 22), वित्रादिभ्यश्च (iv. 1. 41) and प्रज्ञादिभ्यश्च (v. 4. 38).

c8.32

∗ आकृतियणः, meaning that the list is not exhaustive. † See p. 62 of the Bombay Ed. of Bhânu Dikshita's com. on Amara.

c8.33.1

The whole of this difficulty, however, vanishes, if we give up the notion, that the full-moon night in the month of Mârgashîrṣha might have commenced the year at one time and that the name of the Nakshatra as given by Amara must be derived from the name of the full-moon. There is no express authority in the Vedic works to support such a theory and a closer examination of Pâṇini's sûtras points to the same conclusion. Months in the Hindu calendar receive their names from the full-moon nights occuring in them; and the characteristics of a month are the same as those of the full-moon night after which it is named. If the full-moon night in Mârgashîrsha was, therefore, ever the new-year's night then the month itself would have come to be properly called the first month of the year. In other words the month of Mârgashîrsha would itself, in that case, be called Agrahâyana. Boehtlingk and Roth do interpret the word Agrahâyana in this way on the authority of Shabda-kalpa-druma and Târânâtha has done the same probably on the same authority, for none quotes any passage where the word is so used. Now if Agrahâyana ever meant the month of Mârgashîrsha the word would also assume the form Agrahâyana on the ground given above by Bhattoji ;* and we shall have Agrahâyana as another name of the month of Mârgashîrsha. The word occurs in the Gaurâdi list (Pan. iv. 1. 41), and therefore must be taken to have been known to Pânini. What did he understand it to mean?

c8.33.2

There is strong ground to hold that he could not have understood it to mean the month of Mârgashîrsha. For if we suppose that in Pânini's times there were two forms of the word in this sense—Agrahâyana and Agrahâyanika—he would have rather mentioned Agrahâyanî in iv. 2. 23,† along with Chaitrî, &c., which gives the double forms Chaitra and Chaitrika and not with Ashvatta in iv. 2. 22† as he has now done. We may, therefore, infer that Agrahâyanika was the only sanctioned form of the word to denote the month of Mârgashîrsha in Pânini's time. This means that Pânini did not know of the theory which makes the year commence with the Mârgashîrshî full-moon night or the month of Mârgashîrsha (*Agrahâyaṇa*). If so, he could not have derived the word *Agrahâyaṇî* for the full-moon night directly by taking it to be a Bahuvrîhi compound.* The only other alternative is to derive it as we derive *Chaitrî* and other similar words, and I think this is what Pânini meant. For if he had been aware of any such difficulty in the formation of *Agrahâyaṇî*,—a word thrice used by him,—and especially in in obtaining the initial long vowel as Bhattoji and others have felt by taking it to be a Bahuvrîhi compound, he would have naturally noticed it himself. I therefore conclude that Pânini derived *Agrahâyaṇî* from *Agrahâyaṇa*, as the name of a Nakshatra. In this case we can derive *Agrahâyaṇî* in a simple and easy manner. For by Pânini iv. 2.

c8.33.3

3, we get the initial long vowel, when derivative words are formed from the names of the Nakshatras to express time; we now want the feminine suffix *i*, and though this could have been obtained by Pân. iv. 1. 15, yet, for accentual purposes, it may be considered as provided for by the inclusion of the word *Agrahâyaṇat* in the Gaurâdi list in Pan. iv. 1. 41. We can thus derive the word in the ordinary way, and unless we have strong grounds to maintain that it was really the full-moon night and not the Nakshatra, which commenced the year, we shall not be justified in accepting unusual derivations and explanations of these words. It is true that the word *Agrahāyaṇī* as denoting a Nakshatra is now lost and Amarasinha only gives *Agrahāyaṇī* and not *Agrahāyaṇa* as a synonym for the Nakshatra of Mṛgashiras. But I shall presently show that Amarasinha is not alone in misconceiving the meaning of these old words. The theory that the Mār-gashīrṣhī full-moon was the first night of the year, has been the source of many other errors in later literature; but before examining these it was necessary to show how the theory has distorted the natural meaning and derivation of the very words on which it appears to have been based.

c8.33.4

As remarked above if there be any express or cogent authority to support the theory we might connive at the etymological difficulties, but if it be found that the theory is inconsistent with many other facts, or leads, as I shall presently show, to absurd results, the etymological distortions would afford us an additional ground for rejecting it.

c8.34

∗ Bhânu Dikshita, in his commentary on Amara i. 4. 84. gives Agrahâyana as a synonym for Mârgashîrsha on the authority of Purushottama and obtains the initial long vowel by including the word in the Jyotsnâdi iist.

c8.35

† The sutras are—आग्रहायणश्व्याहक् (iv. 2. 22) विभाषा फाल्गुनीश्रवणकार्तिकीचैत्रीभ्यः (iv. 2. 23). As the sutras follow each other it is natural to suppose that Agrahâyanî, if it gave rise to two forms, would have been included in the second sutra.

c8.36

∗ For then the full-moon night, and hence the month, would itself be the commencement of the year.

c8.37

† Doubts have been raised as to the exact form of the word mentioned in the Gaurâdi list, and Bhânu Dikshita goes so far as to question whether the word was really included in the list by Pânini.

c8.38

We shall now examine in detail the theory that the full-moon night in Mārgaśīrṣha was once the first night of the year. So far as I am aware there is no express authority for such an hypothesis except the statement in the Bhagavad-Gītā (x. 35) where Kṛiṣhṇa tells Arjuna that he, Kṛiṣhṇa, is "Mārgaśīrṣha of the months (and), Vasanta of the seasons." Ānandagiri in his gloss on Śaṅkara's Bhāṣhya upon the Gītā, observes that Mārgaśīrṣha is here specially selected because it is a month of plenty. But the reason does not appear to be either sufficient or satisfactory; for the next sentence, and in fact the whole context, shows that Mārgaśīrṣha was here intended to be the first of the months. The principle commentators on the Gītā are too philosophical to notice this point, but in a commentary written by Sūrya Paṇḍit, an astronomer, entitled the Paramārtha-prapā, I find that he explains the statement on the ground that Mârgashîrsha was otherwise called Agrahâyaṇika, and the latter word denotes that the full-moon night in this month was the first night of the year.* If we accept this explanation, and no other plausible one is forthcoming, it appears that this statement in the Bhagavad-Gîtâ was based on an etymological misconception of the meaning of the term Agrahâyaṇika; and later writers like Amarasinha and Vâgbhaṭa,† simply followed the Gîtâ in assigning the same position to the month of Mârgashîrsha. We may, therefore treat all these statements as coming from one source and representing a certain period of the Sanskrit literature, when native scholars first misconceived the primary meaning of Agrahâyaṇika. I have already shown that, properly understood, the etymology of the word gives little room for such a misconception. Agrahâyaṇika is really a derivative word and cannot therefore mean that the month denoted by it was the first in the year just as Jyeṣṭha does not mean the eldest month. But it appears that the tradition about Mṛigashiras (Agrahâyaṇa) ever being the first of the Nakshatras, was completely lost in those days, and native scholars believed, on what they considered to be sound etymological grounds that the month and not the Nakshatra was the commencement of the year. Once started and embodied in the Gîtâ, the theory gained an easy and rapid currency amongst native scholars, all of whom naturally felt bound to shape their views accordingly.

c8.39

∗ The commentary is printed at Poona. The words in the original are—यद्वा मृगशिरः पूर्णमासबंधेन वर्षादिरभिहितस्तस्मिन्नैवाग्रहायणीत्याभिधानात् । आम्रायणं यस्यां साग्रहायणी । अत एवाग्रहायणिक इति मार्गशीर्षनाम । अतोऽस्य मासस्य मुख्यत्वाद्विभूतित्वम् । If Anandagiri's explanation be correct then the Gîtâ is not opposed to deriving Agrahâyaṇî from Agrahâyaṇa, the name of a Nakshatra, and the whole of the above discussion would be unnecessary.

c8.40

† Vâgbhaṭa, in his larger work entitled Ashṭângasangraha, otherwise called Vṛiddha Vâgbhaṭa, enumerates the months as beginning with Mârgashîrsha. In i, 4 of the work the Uttarâyaṇa is said to commence with Mâgha, while Mârgashîrsha is mentioned first amongst the months there enumerated, much after the same way as Amara has done in i, 4, 13 and 14.

c8.41.1

And not only literary scholars, but astronomers appear to have done the same. In old astronomical works the year commenced with the winter solstice and the first month of the year meant the first month of the Uttarâyana which commenced with this solstice. If then the Mârgashîrshî full moon was said to be the first night of the year, an astronomer would naturally understand such statement to mean that the winter solstice fell on the full-moon day of Mârgashîrsha. Now if we suppose that the Mârgashîrshî full-moon was thus the night of the winter solstice, it would mean that the full moon on that day happened to be near the asterism of Mrigashiras. With the sun at the winter solstice, the moon, to be full, must be near the summer solstice; and therefore the summer solstice must have then coincided with the asterism of Mrigashiras. The vernal equinox is 90° behind the summer solstice; and if Mrigashiras coincided with the latter, the vernal equinox would then be 90° behind the asterism of Mrigashiras. This is the only logical and mathematical conclusion possible if we accept the theory that the full-moon night in Mârgashîrsha was the first night of the year at the winter solstice. And what does it mean? It means a clear mathematical absurdity to us, though older astronomers, not realizing its full effect, invented an explanation to account for it. The Sûrya Siddhânta (viii. 2. 9) gives 63° as the polar longitude of Mrigashiras, counting from Revati.

c8.41.2

Now if the vernal equinox was 90° behind the asterism of Mrigashiras, it was 90°—63° = 27° behind the asterism of Revati!* The Vedic works, on the other hand, mention the Krittikâs as the first of the Nakshatras, and the winter solstice is shewn to have then occurred in the month of Mâgha. This means that the vernal equinox must be placed at least 26° 40', or nearly 27° in front of Revati. Now imagine the position of the Indian astronomer, who could neither reject the statement in the Vedic works, nor the one in the Bhagvad Gîtâ. Both were sacred and unquestionable texts, and it would be no wonder if, to his great relief, he got over the difficulty by proposing a libration of the equinoxes, 27° on either side of Revati! The hypothesis is now given up by modern astronomers as mathematically incorrect; but no reason has yet been assigned why it found place in the Hindu astronomy. A theory may be erroneous, but even an erroneous theory cannot become prevalent without a good cause. It has been suggested by Bentley and approved by Prof. Whitney †, that the limits of the libration might have been determined by the fact that the earliest recorded Hindu year had been made to begin when the sun entered the asterism of Krittikâ or 26° 40' in front of Revati. But this alone is not enough to suggest the theory of libration.

c8.41.3

For, unless the Hindu astronomer had grounds—to him conclusive and otherwise inexplicable—for holding that the vernal equinox fell 27° on *each* side of Revati, he would not have proposed the libration of the equinoxes. So far as I know no such grounds have been yet discovered by modern scholars, and if the explanation given above accounts for the theory in all its details, I see no reason why it should not be accepted as a probable explanation. Perhaps, it may be asked, what grounds I have to suppose that the astronomers combined the two statements declaring that Mâgha and Mârgashîrsha were both, each in its turn, the first months of the year, and so obtained the theory of the libration of the equinoxes, This is, however, not the place to go fully into this discussion ; for all that I am bound to prove, as far as the present inquiry is concerned, is that if we accept the theory that the Mârgashîrsha full moon was ever the new-year's night, it leads us to an absurd conclusion, and this is evident from the above whether it does or does not give the real explanation of the libration theory. I may, however, remark that when we actually find Amarasinha first stating (i. 4. 13) that " seasons comprise two months each beginning with Mâgha, and three such seasons make an *ayana*," and then in the very next verse enumerating the months commencing with Mârgashîrsha ;

c8.41.4

there is nothing extraordinary in the supposition that some Hindu astronomers might have similarly attempted to reconcile what were then regarded as the two beginnings of the year, by placing the statements in juxtaposition and pushing them to their logical conclusions. On the contrary, I should have been surprised if the Hindu astronomers had not done so.

c8.42

∗ This may imply that the Sûrya Siddhânta was in existence at the time when the libration theory was started. I think it was. But it has been suggested that the libration theory might have been subsequently inserted therein (see Whitney's Sur. Sid., p. 104). It is not, however, necessary to make any supposition regarding the existence of the Surya Siddhânta at this time, as almost all other Siddhântas give the same bhoga, viz., 63° for Mrigashiras. See Colebrooke's Essays, Vol ii., p. 325 (table).

c8.43

† See Surya Siddhânta, p. 103.

c8.44

But, apart from the origin of the libration theory, I think it is clear that, if we accept that the Mârgashîrsha full-moon was ever a new-year's night, in the sense that the winter solstice occurred at that time, we are inevitably landed on an absurdity. By the ordinary proces of *reductio ad absurdum*, we are thus compelled to abandon the theory that the full moon in Mârgashîrsha once began the year at the winter solstice. Native scholars and astronomers, who did not realize the absurdity, accepted the theory of the libration of the equinoxes as the only possible way of reconciling the two statements in their sacred books. We now know that the equinox cannot be placed 27° behind Revati, unless it be either in the beginning of the present cycle of the precession of the equinoxes or about 600 years hereafter, and we should have no difficulty in rejecting the premises that give us such a conclusion. Perhaps it may be urged that the full-moon night in Mârgashîrsha might have been called the new-year's night in some other sense.∗ Yes, it might be; but what evidence is there that any native scholars ever thought of it? None that I know of. There are only two beginnings of the year known in ancient Hindu literature. I have shown that the winter solstice could not have occurred on the full-moon in Mârgashîrsha, and by the same method we can prove the improbability of the vernal equinox falling on that day. For if we suppose the Mârgashîrsha full-moon to be the new-year's night, in the sense that the vernal equinox occurred on that date, we must make the asterism of Abhijit coincide with the vernal equinox. This gives us about 20,000 years B. C. for the period when these positions could have been true. The author of the Bhâgavata Purâṇa appears to have had some such theory in his mind when he paraphrased (xi. 16. 27) the above quoted verse in the Gîtâ by "I am Mârgashîrsha of the months, Abhijit of the Nakshatras," and the late Kṛiṣhṇa Shâstri Godbole took this statement for a record of a real tradition! This illustrates the danger of relying on traditions in later books, without tracing them to their source in the oldest works we possess.

c8.45

∗ The only other explanation, I know of, is that given by Bentley in his Historical Survey of Hindu Astronomy, pp. 5-27. Bentley divides the zodiac into 27 lunar mansions, beginning with Shravishthâ in the winter solstice, as in the Vedânga Jyotisha. Then he divides it again into 12 tropical months beginning with Mâgha. The beginning of Mâgha and the divisional Shravishthâ thus coincide at this time. Now the beginning of each month must fall back owing to the precession of the equinoxes; and in thus receding if the beginning of *any* month coincided with *any* fixed lunar mansion, on the 6th lunar day, the month, says Bentley, was made to commence the year! But what authority is there in native astronomical works for such an elaborate and artificial theory to determine the commencement of the year? Native astronomers are surely expected to know better the theory on which they commenced their year. Then, according to Bentley's calculation, Âshvina was the first month in 1192 B. C. and Kârtika in 945 B. C. But there is no evidence whatsoever in the Sanskrit literature to corroborate these results. Again why should either of these months not have been called Âgrahâyanika? Bentley supposes that this method was in force till

c8.46

We must therefore rise above these etymological speculations of the native scholars of what Prof. Max Müller once called the Renaissance period of the Sanskrit literature. It is these speculations that have given us the libration theory

c8.47

538 A, D.; if so, why should Pausha not become *Agrahâyaṇika* instead of Mârgashîrsha, in 451 B. C.? Bentley's *unsupported specula-tiou* must, therefore, be rejected as imaginary. It gives no reason why Mârgashîrsha, the third of the several months which, according to his theory, would successively begin the year from 1193 B. C. to 538 A. D., should alone have been called *Agrahâyaṇika* and none whatever why the Nakshatra should be called *Agrahâyaṇi* contrary to the usual rule, according to which the word should denote the full-moon day.

c8.48

and interrupted the tradition of *Agrahâyaṇi* coming down to us intact. It is difficult to say how these etymological speculations originated. Perhaps the word *Agrahâyaṇika* was in course of time corrupted by nonuser into *Agrahâyaṇa* on the analogy of *Chaitra* and *Chaitrika*, and such corruption gave rise to these speculations, or it might be that the year locally commenced with Mârgaśîrsha in certain provinces, and attempts were made to find an authority for such custom in the etymological meaning of the word *Agrahâyaṇika*. It appears to me more probable, however, that the old tradition about the Nakshatra gradually got connected with the month which was named after it as in the case of Kârtika, whose first rank amongst months is suggested by Prof. Whitney "as due to the ancient position of the Kṛittikâs as the first among the lunar mansions "* This is very likely if, as shown below, the word *Agrahâyaṇi* was ever used to denote both the Nakshatra and the full-moon. But whatever the origin, the speculation was there safe under the authority and prestige of the Bhagavad Gîtâ, and Amarasinha, who appears to have been not wholly free from the influence of such theories, naturally put down *Agrahâyaṇi* instead of *Agrahâyaṇa*, as the name of the Mṛigashiras, especially as the latter word, *Agrahâyaṇa*, was not expressly mentioned by Pâṇini. Later lexicographers, who considered Amara and especially the Gîtâ to be above error, attempted to reconcile Amara's statement with the system of Pâṇini by unusual derivations, and astronomers appear to have vied with them in mathematically reconciling the real and the imaginary beginnings of the year! We must, therefore, set aside all these theories and go back to the purer times of Pâṇini, to determine what was the real name of the Nakshatra I have already shown that Pāṇini knew the word *Agrahāyaṇa* and also that he could not have understood it to mean the month of Mārgaśīrṣha. It is, therefore, evident that he used it as a derivative from Agrahāyaṇa in the sense of time as given in Pāṇini iv. 2. 3. If so, he considered *Agrahāyaṇa* to be a name of the Nakshatra of Mṛigashiras. Amarsinha's *Agrahāyaṇī* is, therefore, either an error or a feminine adjective for the *tārā* of Mṛigashiras meaning exactly the same thing as *Agrahāyaṇa*; thus *Agrahāyaṇa* = *Agrthāyaṇa* (Pan. v. 4. 38), *Agrahāyaṇa* + *ī* (Pan. iv. 1. 15) = *Agrahāyaṇī*.[^ *]

c8.49

∗ See his Surya Sidhânta, p. 271 (xiv. 16 n.)

c8.50

In support of this derivation, may be cited the fact that Mṛigashiras was once considered to be a feminine word. Mukuṭa and Bhānu Dikshita[^ †] both quote, Bopālita who gives the neuter and the feminine forms of Mṛigashiras. Rāmanātha in his Trikāṇḍa Viveka, gives a quotation from Rabhasa and another from a *Smṛiti* to the same effect.[^ ‡] If the word Mṛigashiras was thus ever used in the feminine gender, the feminine adjective *Agrahāyaṇī* might have been used as a synonym for the same, not because it was the name of the full-moon, but because the asterism was spoken of in the feminine gender. This may account for the fact why Amarasinha lays particular stress on this point.

c8.51

[^ *]: This is open to the objection that we have to include *Agrahāyaṇa* in the Prajnādi list. [^ †]: Amara i, 3, 23. Bhānu Dikshita's commentary is printed in Bombay and Mukuṭa's and Kshīrasvāmin's are published in Anundoram Borooah's unfortunately incomplete edition of Amara's lexicon. [^ ‡]: See extracts from Rāmanātha's com. in Anundoram Borooah's publication, p. 112.

c8.52

For says he "Mṛigashirṣham (is) Mṛigashiras; Āgrahāyaṇī (is used) to denote the very same*;” thus implying that a feminine word is used to denote what he supposed might be regarded only in the neuter gender. This is, indeed, a plausible explanation. It not only absolves Amarasinha from the charge of having given a wrong, or at least a distorted, word, but makes him warn his readers not to misunderstand the word Āgrahāyaṇī for the full-moon night—a mistake into which almost all his commentators have, however, unfortunately fallen. It may further explain why instead of the Nakshatra, the full-moon day (both of which were on this theory denoted by the same word Āgrahāyaṇī) came to be regarded as the first night of the year and so gave rise to later speculations. But the fact that Amarasinha mentions Mārga-shīrsha first amongst the months shows that he was not altogether free from the influence of the speculative theory; and the explanation above stated must therefore be accepted with caution.

First 61 of 77 passages. Read on

Linked texts (20)