The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c8.41

Language: English

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.