The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c8.18

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.