Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Bharatiya Jyotihshastra (History of Indian Astronomy), translated by R. V. Vaidya v1.c6.s5: Summary of Part One

Bhāratīya Jyotiḥśāstra (History of Indian Astronomy), translated by R. V. Vaidya v1.c6.s5

Language
English

Contents

Summary of Part One

The Time of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa

v1.c6.s5.t1.1

This part will be summarised after stating some important facts and inferences worth mentioning at this place.

v1.c6.s5.t1.2

Following lines are found in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa :—

v1.c6.s5.t1.3

एकं द्वे त्रीणि चत्वारीति वा अन्यानि नक्षत्राण्यथैता एव भूयिष्ठा यत्कृत्तिकास्तद्मानमेवैतदुपैति तस्मात्कृत्तिकास्वादधीत ॥२॥ एता ह वै प्राच्यै दिशो न च्यवन्ते सर्वाणि ह वा अन्यानि नक्षत्राणि प्राच्यै दिशश्च्यवन्ते तत्प्राच्यामेवास्यैतदधियाहितो भवत्तस्मात्कृत्तिकास्वादधीत ॥३॥

v1.c6.s5.t1.4

शतपथब्राह्मण, २. १. २.

v1.c6.s5.t1.5

"Kṛttikās alone consist of many stars, other asterisms (consisting of) one, two, three, or only four stars. (He who performs the agnyādhāna ceremony on this nakṣatra) gets plentifulness (or abundance) of this star; that is why "fire should be lit" on Kṛttikās. These are the only stars which do not 'deviate' from the east while all others do. He who does the ceremony on this nakṣatra gets two of his 'agnis' i.e. fires firmly established in the east, and that is why fire should first be lit on Kṛttikās."

v1.c6.s5.t1.6

The statement "Kṛttikās never deviate from the east" implies that these stars always rise in the east, that is, they are situated on the Equator or that their declination is zero. At present they do not appear to rise exactly in the east but at a point north of east; this happens because of precessional motion of the equinox. Assuming 50" as annual motion, the time when the junction star of the Kṛttikās had zero declination, comes to be 3068 years before Śaka and even 150 years earlier, i.e. the approximate time of commencement of Kali era, if 48" be adopted as the precessional annual motion. Calculating the declination of some other stars in this age, we find that the northernmost star of Rohiṇī group, the southern three of Hasta group, two from Anurādhā, one from Jyeṣṭhā and one from Aśvinī were situated near the Equator; only some one star from Hasta group (if at all) could possibly have been situated exactly on the Equator, otherwise none.

v1.c6.s5.t1.7

The statement about Kṛttikās rising in the east is made in the present tense and they can not always do so because of precessional motion of equinoxes. In our time we find them rising to the north of east and they used to rise to its south in 3100 B.S. From this it can be inferred that the concerning portion in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa was written about 3100 years before Saka era.

The Time of Kṛttikādi system

v1.c6.s5.t2.1

The list of nakṣatras mentioned in the Vedas begins with Kṛttikās. The equinox used to occur in the 4th quarter of Bharaṇī division in the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa age. It must have been in Kṛttikās before that time; and assuming that the nakṣatra-list commenced from Kṛttikās, Bentley and other European scholars have found 15th century B.C. as the time when the equinox used to take place in Kṛttikās; but this is erroneous. The mistake which was committed in the case of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa has been committed in this case also. The tropical longitude of Kṛttikās must have been zero in the age when equinox used to coincide with this asterism. Its sāyana longitude in 1850 A.D. was 57° 54'. Hence, the time of equinox being in Kṛttikās comes to be (57° 54' × 72) i.e. 4170 yrs—1850=2320 B.C. The scholar Bayo has found out the time of Kṛttikādi system as prevailing amongst the Chinese to be about 2357 B.C.* and he must have found the time by adopting the same system of calculation as followed by the author. He has not read Bayo's original articles; but it is surprising to see that Bayo has not followed the system in the case of Hindus which he has done in the case of the Chinese-nakṣatra system.

v1.c6.s5.t2.2

According to Weber, the time of Kṛttikā being first nakṣatra comes to be somewhere between 2780 to 1820 B.C. Dr. Thibhaut has a fairly good knowledge of Indian astronomy. His opinion about this point has recently been published. The gist of his arguments is as follows:—There is no support to show that Kṛttikās were regarded as the first nakṣatra because equinox used to occur in that nakṣatra. We do not come across any description in the Vedic literature about planetary positions signifying a time prior to the one given by the solstitial positions described by Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa. The statement of winter solstice occurring in the beginning of Dhaniṣṭhā nakṣatra is very ambiguous; because the stars in the nakṣatra division** occupied by the sun is never visible; it can not be said with certainty at which point of the ecliptic the sun must have been for the occurrence of the winter solstice given by Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa. Hence, the time calculated by the above method is liable to be mistaken even by 1000 years.

v1.c6.s5.t2.3

The Europeans have not even now understood the quotation from Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa given above. The Pleiades are seen above the horizon for about 10 or 11 months during the year; and when they used to rise exactly in the east, this eastern rise could be seen from any place on the earth then; and there is nothing to be doubted about this. If there would have been an error of 1 degree in ascertaining the exact astronomical east, that in the calculated time would not be more than 200 years. In short, the reason why Kṛttikās used to be reckoned as the 1st nakṣatra was their rising in the exact East. The time for this event was about 3000 B.S. without doubt.

The Vedic Age

v1.c6.s5.t3.1

The Taittirīya Saṃhitā which is more ancient than Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa also mentions Kṛttikās as the first nakṣatra. Hence, this part of the Saṃhitā must have been compiled either in 3000 B.S. or a century or two before. The statement about Kṛttikās being first is unequivocally given in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and hence its time is definitely 3000 B.S. or a century or two later. It can be said without doubt that all those sections of the Vedas which quote Kṛttikās as the first nakṣatra must have been compiled a century or two earlier or later than 3000 B.S. The Rigveda Saṃhitā does not mention the Kṛttikādi nakṣatra system; hence, it must belong to a time earlier than 3000 B.S.

v1.c6.s5.t3.2

∗ See translation of S.S. by Burgess.

v1.c6.s5.t3.3

∗∗ See the 1895, April issue of Indian Antiquary XXIV.

Who was the Originator of the Nakṣatra System?

v1.c6.s5.t4.1

Some Europeans maintain that the Vedic nakṣatra system does not belong to the Indians originally. The author thinks there is no country in the world the people of which (however savage they might be) never observed any association of the moon with the stars or have not given any names to them.

v1.c6.s5.t4.2

If no other evidence can be given to show that the Vedic nakṣatra system belongs to Indians, at least some of the Vedic stories, like the Moon's love to Rohiṇī, can be taken as sufficient evidences. The time when, according to some Europeans, the Hindus appear to have borrowed this system from the Chinese, the Babylonians or other unknown countries, could not have been earlier than 2780 B.C.; but it has already been shown above that nakṣatras were known to Hindus earlier than 3000 B.C. and that these are mentioned in the Vedic literature even before this time. From this it will appear that the argument, that nakṣatras have been borrowed by Hindus from foreigners, does not stand. If Chinese have established their system independently, then the Hindus also have done the same independently and any impartial thinker will agree with this.

Caitra and Other Names

v1.c6.s5.t5.1

It has been observed that names of months, Caitra and others are nowhere found in the Vedas; but they are found in later works of the Brāhmaṇic period. We come across the following line in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.

v1.c6.s5.t5.2

योऽसौ वैशाखस्यामावास्या तस्यामाधीत...आत्मन्येवंतप्रजायां पशुषु प्रतितिष्ठति ।। श. ब्रा. ११. १. १. ७.

v1.c6.s5.t5.3

"It is the new moon of Vaisākha...which becomes a source of prosperity to us, to people and to beasts."

v1.c6.s5.t5.4

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa consists of two parts comprising 14 sections in all. The first part, known as Pūrva Śatapatha, contains 10 sections (=66 chapters) and the second part, Uttara Śatapatha consists of 4 sections (=34 chapters). The above line occurs in the 11th section; just before this line we get the line

v1.c6.s5.t5.5

तस्मान्न नक्षत्र आदधीत ।। श. ब्रा. ११. १. १. ३.

v1.c6.s5.t5.6

which means "do not lit fire on the nakṣatra", and it has been ordained in the first part that 'ādhāna' should take place specifically on the nakṣatra. We get a reference of the term 'Vedānta' at two or three places in the same portion of the 11th section in which the above line occurs and in which the portion of the Vedic literature known as 'Vedānta' containing Upaniṣads also occurs and the 14th section of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa is devoted to the theory of Vedānta itself; that it is known as Bṛhadāraṇyaka is also well known. It can easily be seen from this that the second part of Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa belongs to a much later period than the first one; and no objection can be raised if we say that the names, Caitra etc. came into vogue in the latter part of the Brāhmaṇic period. The Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa gives the line

v1.c6.s5.t5.7

तैष्यामावास्याया एकाह उपरिष्टाद्वीक्षेरन् माघस्य वेत्याहुः । कौ. ब्रा. १६. २. ३.

v1.c6.s5.t5.8

“One should commence a sacrifice after the passing of ‘ekāha’ of the new moon of Pauṣa”;

v1.c6.s5.t5.9

in which we get the terms Taiṣa (i.e, Pauṣa) and Māgha. This very line has at its end a sentence which means that winter solstice occurs in the beginning of Māgha. This shows that the time of this Brāhmaṇa (K. Br.) must have been the same (viz. 1500 B.S.) as that of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa. The Pañca Vimśa Brāhmaṇa gives the following line :—

v1.c6.s5.t5.10

मुखं वा एतत्संवत्सरस्य यत्फाल्गुन : पंचविंश ब्रा. ५. ९. ८.

v1.c6.s5.t5.11

“The month known as Phālguna is the ‘month’ (i.e. the commencing month) of the year”.

v1.c6.s5.t5.12

This refers to the month Phālguna. The whole consideration shows that the names of months, Caitra and others, were never in vogue in the Vedic times, but had come into use, at the end of the Brāhmaṇic period.

v1.c6.s5.t5.13

*The Time when these Terms (Caitra etc,) came into vogue.*

v1.c6.s5.t5.14

Let us consider the problem of finding the time when these names came into use. The sidereal year exceeds the solar year by about 50 palas. Seasons depend upon solar year. The season which would seem to occur to-day when the sun would come to equinox, would seem to occur even after thousands of years when the sun comes to equinox ; but seasons will not be the same for all times to come when the sun comes to the same particular nakṣatra ; a difference of two months (for the occurrence of the same season) will take place after about 4300 years i.e. of one month after about 2000 years.* Thus, if the Spring season has been observed to be occurring when the sun comes to Aśvinī, the next season Summer (i.e. the Grīṣma) would be found to occur at the sun’s entry into Aśvinī after about 4½ thousand years, and the rainy season after about 8½ thousand years. The time interval between the sun’s two coincidences with Aśvinī star is known as the sidereal year. When the sun is near Aśvinī star, the moon is near about Citrā star on the full moon day, and hence, this lunar month comes to be known as Caitra. Hence, if the spring season is observed to occur in a lunar month known as Caitra (from Moon’s proximity with the star Citrā on full moon day), the spring will be seen to commence some time in Caitra for 2150 years and then some time in Phālguna for another 2150 years and then in Māgha for another 2150 years. (Or in other words, the summer season will be seen to occur in Caitra after about 4½ thousand years after the time when spring season used to occur in Citrā.) In short the month Caitra would maintain its position as the first month of spring for about 2000 years only.

v1.c6.s5.t5.15

∗ A detailed discussion of precessional motion and of sāyana system will be found in the second part. The consideration of such matters in this chapter are made on the assumption that the equinoctial point makes a revolution in about 26000 years.

v1.c6.s5.t5.16

We find the identity ‘Caitra + Vaiśākha = Vasanta (spring) season’ in almost all works. The moment of commencement of season receded after a long time after the above identity became established in practice, and that is why we come across ‘Mīna + Meṣa = Vasanta’ or ‘Phālguna + Caitra = Spring’ in some later works, and some almanac makers follow this identity at present. In our times the spring season is actually found to occur in Māgha and Phālguna, but the definition ‘Caitra + Vaiśākha = Vasanta season’ still persists in popular minds. The names Madhu and Mādhava have association with seasons and not with nakṣatras ; still the long usage of the identity ‘ Caitra + Vaiśākha = Spring ’ has made people wrongly to shift the association of Madhu from that of Spring season to the nakṣatra name and Caitra is now wrongly called as ‘ Madhumāsa ’. When the time of commencement of spring receded from Caitra to Phālguna, the identity, ‘Phālguna + Chaitra = Vasanta’ came into use and we find this definition in some later works. But we do not find the identities ‘Vaiśākha + Jyeṣṭha = Vasanta’ and ‘Caitra as the second month of Śiśira’ in any of the older works, when it was a fact, that spring actually began one month earlier than Caitra (say, 2000 years before). This definitely points to the fact that the names Caitra etc. came into vogue in those times when the vernal equinox actually used to take place in Caitra ; and this hint can lead one to find the probable time. The spring season commences one month before the sun comes to equinox i.e. when the tropical longitude of the sun is 330° ; and in order that the corresponding month should be named as Nirayaṇa* Caitra, the longitude of Spica (Citrā) must be less than this by 6 signs or 180° i.e. = 330—180 = 150°. The tropical longitude of this star in 1850 A. D. was 6s 21° i.e. 201° or in excess of 150° by 51°. The time for this advance= 51 × 72 = 3672 years. Hence, the time for spring to occur in Caitra must be 3672—1850 = 1822 B. C., and it can be inferred that the terms Caitra etc. must have come into vogue in this period. Now taking into consideration the fact that the spring season commences earlier in some provinces and later in others, the time when the terms Caitra etc came into use will be taken to be earlier than what is found above. In some provinces the spring commences about a month and a half before the sun comes to vernal equinox and not earlier. Adopting the condition of “1½ month earlier than equinoctial day” the time of Caitrādi system would come to 2900 B.C. Again, the doubt as to when the spring season should be taken as begun, the different longitudinal values of nakṣatras, all these factors lead one to adopt 4000 B. S. as the upper-most limit for the possible year before which the terms Caitra etc. could not have come into vogue. The Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa contains Caitra etc. as the names of months ; its time has been shown to be about the year 1400 B. S. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā does not contain these names and the time of compilation of some of its parts has been shown to be about 3000 B. S. He who has understood the sacrificial procedure given by Taittirīya Saṃhitā and the units of time like seasons and months, will know that if these terms would have been in the time of Taittirīya Saṃhitā they must have entered the text at some place or the other. This argument will convince the reader that the terms were not current before the time 3000 B. S. There are several big volumes of Brāhmaṇic works (at least 4) which do not mention these terms, It is clear that these are of later date than Taittirīya Saṃhitā. After weighing all these facts the writer feels that the time when the names Caitra etc. came into vogue should be safely taken to be 2000 B. S. Those parts of Kausītaki, Śatapatha and Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇas which mention these terms, must have been compiled between 2000 and 1500 B.S.

v1.c6.s5.t5.17

∗ For the sake of convenience I call a solar month as sāyana and the sidereal month as nirayaṇa.

Commencement of the Year

v1.c6.s5.t6.1

In the Rigveda Saṃhitā no actual statement is made that a particular season should be regarded as the first one, nor do we find any indication about it. The words Śarad, Hemanta and Vasanta (names of seasons) are themselves used in the sense of a ‘Year’ and hence there are grounds to believe that the year used to commence with these seasons; but the words Grīṣma, Varṣā and Śiśira are not found used in the Rigveda Saṃhitā in the sense of a ‘year’.

v1.c6.s5.t6.2

It has already been said (on page 63) before that the year used to commence with Spring season and Madhu month in the age when the Yajurveda Saṃhitā was composed and generally in the Vedic age. There is no clear statement in the Vedic works that the year began in other seasons, and it is the author's opinion that we do not come across any indcation to show that the year commenced with winter solstice. This was Prof. Tilak's view and this has been examined later on. In Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa time, the year no doubt commenced with W.S. ; however, in the time when Sūtra works and the Mahābhārata were compiled; the first season was Spring which consisted of Caitra and Vaisākha together. This shows that both these systems were in vogue after the Vedic times; but the system of beginning the year with spring appears to be more prominently used, since the “ W. S.-year beginning system” was prevalent only in Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa age. Also, we find in later astronomical works (Siddhānta) that they have adopted the system of commencing the year with Caitra and they must have adopted this as the system in vogue just before the compilation of these works.

v1.c6.s5.t6.3

It has been pointed out before (on page 111) that we get references at two places in the Mahābhārata that the list of months begins with Mārgaśīrṣa. Al Berunī, a traveller with Mahmud of Ghazni, has recorded that they in Sind and other provinces commence the year with Mārgaśīrṣa*. This shows that the system of beginning the year with Mārgaśīrṣa must have remained in vogue in some provinces at least for some time. Let us examine the matter in detail.

v1.c6.s5.t6.4

The Kṛttikādi system came into vogue at about 3000 B.S.; and it seems that the Mārgaśīrṣa month used to be regarded as the first month in some provinces soon after. The star Mṛga (Orion) is knwon as “Agrahāyaṇī”. It derives this meaning because “The year (‘Hāyana’) stood at the end (agra) of that nakṣatra-night.” In the Vedic literature we do not find the following quotation :—“P. Phalguni is the last night of the year and U. Phalguni is the first”.† In the Vedic age, the months were lunar and hence the year clearly started with a lunar month ; hence, the above quotation indicates that P. Phalguni formed the last nakṣatra of some lunar month and U. Phalguni the first one of the next month. These are, therefore, the daily nakṣatras (lunar). This shows that the system of commencing a year on the next day of a lunar month which ended with ‘Moon associated with Mṛgaśīrṣa’ must have come into vogue and this (last) night came to be known as Agrahāyaṇī. This must have belonged to the time when Mṛgaśīrṣa was regarded as the first nakṣatra; naturally, Kṛttikās took the place of Mṛgā and became the first nakṣatra. Hence, following the old tradition, people began to commence the year on the next day of the month in which the moon used to be full near Pleides, i.e. in the month of Mārgaśīrṣa, which was a lunar month belonging to Pūrṇimānta-system. Even in these days, we know that the lunar month following a ‘full moon with Kṛttikās’ is known as Mārgaśīrṣa. Following this analogy it may be argued that there must have been a time when the year used to commence on the next day of the night when the moon used to be full with Mṛgaśīrṣa; but a difficulty comes in making this assumption. Such a month would be the lunar Pauṣa; and we do not get any reference to show that a year ever commenced in Pauṣa. We do not see any reason for Mṛgaśīrṣa being regarded as the first nakṣatra, other than the occurrence of vernal equinox in that nakṣatra. The equinox used to occur in the month of Mārgaśīrṣa about 4000 B.S. It has been pointed out that the system of naming months after nakṣatras had not come into vogue then; and that is why this particular month (now known as Mārgaśīrṣa) used to be Agrahāyaṇa or Agrahāyaṇī, and the absence of any reference for a year commencing in Pauṣa is thus understandable. The writer sometimes feels, that the system of naming a lunar month commencing on the next day of “full moon with Kṛttikā” as Kārtika, that commencing on the next day of “full moon with Mṛgaśīrṣa” as Mārgaśīrṣa, and so on, might have been in use; but we do not have it so now, nor do we get any indication of such a system being in vogue before. The full moon day is always regarded as the last tithi of the ‘Pūrṇimānta lunar month’ or of the ‘light half-month’ and never used to belong to the latter month or the second half-month, as can be seen from a number of quotations in the Vedic literature; and the same system is followed at present. Hence, the following definition can be proved on the basis of the quotation of Pāṇini (4.2.21) [viz. “Sāsminpaurṇamāsīti saṃjñāyām”]. The lunar month in which the moon becomes full on Kṛttikās to be known as Kārtika, and the month which would commence from the next day as Mārgaśīrṣa, since the moon would be found to be full near Mṛgaśīrṣa in that month. In short, it can be said that the system of commencing the year with Mārgaśīrṣa must have come into vogue in some provinces after the Kṛttikādi system came into use (i.e. after 3000 B.S.).

v1.c6.s5.t6.5

∗ See p. 8, Biruni, India Vol. II.

v1.c6.s5.t6.6

† Their references from Tai. Br. 1. 1. 2. are given later on.

v1.c6.s5.t6.7

According to Prof. Tilak*, the month Mārgaśīrṣa got the name ‘Agrahāyaṇik’, not because it formed the first month of the year, but because of its association with the star ‘Agrahāyaṇa’, the derivation of this word being according to him that nakṣatra after which the year follows and the sun coming to which shows the equinox and the year begins. This meaning is of course acceptable to the author; but Prof. Tilak assumes two things (or at least they are so understood), viz. (i) that the system of commencing a year in Mārgaśīrṣa was not in vogue and (ii) that the year never began on the next day of that full moon night on which the moon conjuncted with Mṛgaśīrṣa. Even without these assumptions, his interpretation of the word ‘agrahāyaṇa’ can be justified. We come across actual quotations that Mārgaśīrṣa formed the first month of the year and this fact can not be denied. Similarly, it has been shown above, that it was not impossible for the year to have been commencing on the next day of the full moon with Mṛgaśīrṣa and that it actually did.

The Mārgaśīrṣādi System

v1.c6.s5.t7.1

Agrahāyaṇī has been given a synonym of Mṛgaśīrṣa nakṣatra in Amara-kośa. The same word occurs in Pāṇini at 3 places (4.2.22 ; 4.3.50 ; 5.4.110)

v1.c6.s5.t7.2

∗ See Orion, Ch IV.

v1.c6.s5.t7.3

and the month of Mārgaśīrṣa derives its name of Āgrahāyaṇik from the word Āgrahāyaṇī. (Pāṇini 4.2.22) According to grammarians, the word Āgrahāyaṇī chiefly stands for the Mārgaśīrṣa full moon; and even with this meaning, because ‘ Āgrahāyaṇī ’ is the meaning of Mārgaśīrṣa, the Mṛgaśīrṣa nakṣatra must be associated with the moon on the Āgrahāyaṇī full moon day, and ‘ Āgrahāyaṇī ’ has begun to be understood as that full moon day or the next day of which the year commenced. This shows that there was a system of commencing the year on the next day of the Mārgaśīrṣa Pūrṇimā, having the full moon near Āgrahāyaṇī (i. e., Mṛgaśīrṣa) star. Such a month bears the mame ’ Pauṣa ’ by present astronomical system and by Pāṇini’s system also. It has been shown above that the system of year beginning in Mārgaśīrṣa came into vogue after 3000 B.S. Hence, the system of commencing a year on Pauṣa must be prior to this system *i.e.* more ancient than 3000 B.S.; but the phenomenon of Mṛgaśīrṣa star being on equator was an impossibility then; the reason for the year commencing on Mārgaśīrṣa could not have been anything else than the occurrence of vernal equinox in Mṛgaśīrṣa star.

v1.c6.s5.t7.4

Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak wrote a book ‘Orion’ in English in 1893 A.D. in which he has proved, from quotations in the Rigveda Saṃhitā, particularly the verse 1.163.3 and the stanza 10.86, that the vernal equinox used to take place in Mṛgaśīrṣa in Vedic times; and many legends current in India, Persia and Greece are fully explained by assuming the truth of this phenomenon; and the Mṛgādi-system suggests that the time of compilation of some verses in the Rigveda Saṃhitā must have been about 4000 B.S. which has been shown to be true from ‘ Āgrahāyaṇī ’ being the name of Mṛgaśīrṣa.

v1.c6.s5.t7.5

Mr. Tilak has also shown that some Vedic references suggest that the equinox used to occur in Punarvasu. Although the references are not so clear or so many as in the case of Mṛgaśīrṣa, yet the phenomenon is not impossible to have occurred. The equinox used to be in Punarvasu before 6000 B.S. and some of the Vedic Sūtras could have been possibly compiled then.

v1.c6.s5.t7.6

Mr. Tilak argues from the stanza describing the annual sacrifice (samvatsara satra) that the phenomenon of W. S. happening on Citrā full moon and the Phalgunī full moon days leads one to infer that vernal equinoxes used to occur on Mṛga and Punarvasu respectively. But the fact that vernal equinox used to occur in Mṛga nakṣatra can be proved independently and does not require the support of the quotation viz. ‘W.S. used to take place in Phālguna’. There are certain difficulties in not accepting these stanzas for consideration. The first one is that this fact is not stated therein explicitly. The second one is that the ‘Phālgunī-Pūrṇimā’ has been said to be the commencing day of the year; similar ideas are found expressed in Taittirīya Śruti as gvien below :-

v1.c6.s5.t7.7

वसन्ते ब्राह्मणोऽग्निमादधीत ।। वसंतो वै ब्राह्मणस्यर्तुः ।। मुखं वा एतदृतूनां ।।६।।यद्संतः ।। यो वसंतेग्निमाधत्ते ।। मुख्य एव भवति ।। ...न पूर्वयो:फल्गुन्योरग्निमादधीत ।। एषा वै जघन्या रात्रि: संवत्सरस्य ।। यत् पूर्वं फल्गुनी ।।...उत्तरयोरादधीत ।। एषा वै प्रथमा रात्रि: संवत्सरस्य ।। यदुत्तरे फल्गुनी ।। मुखत एव संवत्सरस्याग्निमाधाय ।। वसीयान् भवति ।।...।।८।।
तै. ब्रा. १. १. २.

v1.c6.s5.t7.8

“A Brahmin should ‘establish fire’ (*i.e.* commence the annual sacrifice) in Spring season, which is the (proper) season for a Brāhmaṇa, because it is the ‘mouth’ *i.e.* the first season of the year. Now, about Spring season, He who commences a sacrifice in Spring becomes a leader . . . . . never commence it on Pūrva Phalguni, because it is the hindermost (i. e. last) night of the year...........do commence it on the Uttara Phalguni nakṣatra, as it is the first night of the year; one who ‘establishes fire’ in the beginning of a year, becomes wealthy.”

v1.c6.s5.t7.9

According to this by the word ‘Phalguni’ we have to understand the full moon night, the moon being conjoined with Phalguni nakṣatra. At present the Phālguna-month of the ‘Pūrṇimānta’ system ends on the Phālguni full moon day and Caitra begins on the next day. Similarly we find in the above lines, the Pūrva Phalguni full moon day being mentioned as the last day of the year, and the next night as the ‘mouth’ (commencing night) of the new year, and the ‘ādhāna’ ceremony has been recommended for that day; and in the foregoing lines we find that ‘ādhāna’ ceremony has been ordained to take place on the same day, it being the beginning day of the Spring season. All these lines are given in the same stanza and must be correlated. This proves that the Phālguni-full-moon day must have definite relation with Spring. The Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra gives, in relation to annual sacrifice, the line (1. 2. 14. 3.)

v1.c6.s5.t7.10

अत ऊर्ध्वमिष्टययनानि सांवत्सरिकाणि तेषां फाल्गुन्यां-पौर्णमास्यां चैत्र्यां वा प्रयोगः

v1.c6.s5.t7.11

“Those who desire to commence yearly or half-yearly sacrifices should make use of the full moon day of Phālguna or Caitra.”

v1.c6.s5.t7.12

And in Āśvalāyana Sūtra the months of Phālguna and Caitra are related to Śiśira and Vasanta respectively; and the Hemanta season is bound to commence with W. S.; but nowhere do we find any relation of Phālguna with Hemanta. In some provinces the spring season is taken to begin even two months before the sun comes to the equinox; and on this basis, the commencement of spring season with Caitrī Pūrṇimā must be taken to happen about 4000 B. C., and the spring season can be seen to take place in the same particular month for 2000 years and hence the commencement of spring with Phālguni Pūrṇimā must be taking place about 2000 B. C. and the idea of introducing the system of commencing the year at this very moment could have struck people’s mind and no discrepancy is so far noticed in our reasoning. The Viṣuvān day used to occupy the central place in the Samvatsara-Satra (annual sacrifice); but the word ‘Viṣuvān’ does not appear necessarily to mean that day on which the day and night are of equal length. The year has been described as commencing on a full moon day; and once it is assumed that the central day should be one equinoctial day, it follows that the commencing day also must be another equinoctial day (within a limit of two days); and in order to satisfy this condition, it will be seen that the year cannot be made to begin on a full moon day. For, supposing a certain full moon day (being the commencing day of a year) was an equinoctial day; then the next equinoctial day would be the 11th day after the full moon day and the 3rd one, the 22nd day and so on. This shows that the word ‘Viṣuvān’ used to mean in the beginning the ‘central day of an annual sacrifice or of any other sacrifice’ and this was particularly true about the Taittirīya Samhitā; and as time went on, the term perhaps used to be applied to the equinoctial day and the year began on such day, and that is why the formula for finding out the Viṣuvān day has been given by Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa. Even according to Mr. Tilak’s belief, the Viṣuvān day of 12 hours’ (30 ghaṭis) length, does not occur in the middle of an annual sacrifice, but at the end of the 3rd and 9th months. It has been shown above, that there is no ground for any one to suspect that in the times when the stanza describing the annual sacrifice in the Taittirīya Saṃhitā was compiled, the Viṣuvān (of the meaning of an equinox) used to occur in Phālguna.

The Limits of Vedic Age

v1.c6.s5.t8.1

The lower limit of the Vedic age can be roughly estimated on the basis of the fore-going discussion. But who would be able to fix up the upper limit? It can only be said that it can not be later than the year 6000 B.S. No one can say as to when the Vaidic mantras evolved in the human mind and in one sense the Vedas can be said to be ‘Anādi’ *i.e.* without a beginning. The lower limit of the Vedic age is about the year 1500 B.S. This is followed by Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa. The Saṃhitās (*i.e.* collections of mantras) of all the Vedas, Brāhmaṇas and some of the Upaniṣads have been compiled during this period. Some Upaniṣads might have been compiled even during Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa period; but the lower limit of the Vedic age has already been given above. A part of the Rigveda Saṃhitā belongs to 4000 B.S. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā belongs to 3000 B.S. The Brāhmaṇas were compiled between 3000 to 1500 B.S. Those of them which contain terms like ‘Caitra and others’ were compiled later than 2000 B.S., while others were compiled earlier. Nothing definite can be said about the Upaniṣads; but many of them were compiled between 2000 to 1500 B.S. It is not that the mantras of the Saṃhitā and Brāhmaṇa were compiled in the same time in the form in which they appear to us to-day, still it can be said that they emerged in their complete form before 1500 B.S.

v1.c6.s5.t8.2

Prof. Max Muller has thus attempted to fix up the period of the Vedic age:—“Lord Buddha attained ‘Nirvāṇa’ in the year 477 B.C. The Bauddha religion had its beginning about 100 years before this. The Vedic works were completely compiled till 600 B.C. They appear to belong to 3 periods—Sūtra, Brāhmaṇa and Mantra, the Sūtra period ranging from 600 to 800 B.C., the Brāhmaṇa period 800 to 1000 B.C.; and the Mantras of all Maṇḍalas (sections) of the Rigveda were compiled in an earlier period.” It is his opinion* that no human being will be able to say whether the Rigveda Sūtras were compiled in 1000, 1500, 2000 or 3000 years B.C. and Europeans accept this view. These inferences are based only on history and philology. Taking into consideration this fact and also the assumption of a period of only 200 years for each Vedic subperiod, the author feels that the limits fixed above, on the basis of astronomical evidences should be accepted as correct.

The Limits of Vedāṅga Period

v1.c6.s5.t9.1

1500 B. S. is the upper limit of the Vedāṅgas. The lower limit can be fixed up after examining the problem as to when the 7 week days and Meṣādi signs came into vogue. The names of seven week days are not found in the Vedic literature. Of the remaining ancient works, references of week days are found in none except in Atharva Jyotiṣa and Yājñavalkya Smṛti; and references to Meṣa and others are found in none other than Baudhāyana Sūtra.

v1.c6.s5.t9.2

It is needless to say that both are mentioned in Sūrya Siddhānta and other such works. Even if it be supposed that both of them are products of Indian mind, they, at least, did not belong to the Vedic period.

v1.c6.s5.t9.3

∗ *Physical Religion*, pp. 91-96 (1891 A.D.).

v1.c6.s5.t9.4

The order of names for the 7 week-days is as follows :

v1.c6.s5.t9.5

If the planets be regarded as revolving round the earth, they can be written in their order as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury and Moon. It is assumed that the day is divided into 24 hours (Horā) and these horās are controlled by these seven planets in this very order. These planets get the lordship of the horās thrice in a day and 3 more horās remain. Hence, the lordship of the 1st horā at sunrise passes on to the 4th planet. If, for example, the lord of the first hour on the first day be Saturn (then last 3 hours will be controlled by Saturn, Jupiter & Mars) and Sun will be the lord of the first hour on the next day ; and following the convention that Lord of the first hour to be reckoned as the lord of the whole day, if Saturn be the Lord of the first day, the Sun becomes Lord of the second and hence, Saturday is followed by Sunday. Thus we get the usual order of names of week days. It should be noted that the next day bears the name of every 4th planet from the previous one. The Sūrya Siddhānta observes as follows about it :—

v1.c6.s5.t9.6

मन्दादधः क्रमेण स्युश्चतुर्था दिवसधिपाः ।।७८।।
होरेशाः सूर्यतनयादधः क्रमस्तथा ।।७८।।

v1.c6.s5.t9.7

“The Lords of days are to be reckoned in order fourth from Saturn downwards. The lords of hours also are to be reckoned commencing from Saturn downwards.”

v1.c6.s5.t9.8

Even Āryabhaṭa says that the lords of days are to be taken as ‘4th from the previous one’ “ Śīghra Kramāt caturthāḥ dinapāḥ ” (Kal Kri. 16).

v1.c6.s5.t9.9

The system of dividing a day into 24 parts called ‘horā’ is true only in consideration with the theory of week days and astrology. The astronomical works, Siddhāntas, do enumerate time-units but they do not mention ‘horā’ as one of them, and no work belonging to Vedic and Vedāṅga period ever mentions it. This word is not Sanskrit in origin. Varāhamihira has attempted to justify its Sanskrit origin by explaining that the word is ‘coined’ by taking the middle portion of the word Ahorātra, leaving out ‘A’ and ‘Tra’, but this explanation is not satisfactory. The Chaldeans had this unit in use since a long time and they did have a week of seven days as at present. Considering this the author feels that ‘Week-days’ do not belong to us but have been borrowed from Chaldeans.

v1.c6.s5.t9.10

It has been shown under the topics of Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa and the Mahābhārata that the terms Meṣa and others are Sanskrit and it can not be said for certain that the system of dividing the ecliptic into 12 parts did not originally belong to us. Even from Vedic works we find that people did conceive the idea of giving to asterisms names similar to some well known shapes. We can not, therefore, say for certain that the Meṣādi signs are not ours. These terms, however, do not belong to Vedic or Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa period, which means that these were not in use before 1500 B.S. Now looking to the history of other nations, some say that these were known to Egyptians before 2160 B.C. and according to others even before 3285 B.C. Some are of opinion that Chaldeans knew both Vāra and Rāśis before 3800 B.C. In any case, it can be said for certain that both these nations knew the terms before 1000 B.C. and Mr. Laing writes emphatically that the ‘Vāras’ were known to Chaldeans long before 3800 B. C.*

v1.c6.s5.t9.11

∗ See Proctor Lockair's English book “Nineteenth Century” and his article in the July 1892 issue, page 34; also see S. Laing's Human Origins, Chap. V. pp. 144-158.

v1.c6.s5.t9.12

It can be seen from Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa that both of these were unknown in our country before 1500 B.S.

v1.c6.s5.t9.13

It is a matter of controversy if the terms Meṣa and others originated with shapes of clusters of stars. There does not appear to be any relation between their shape and name, irrespective of the consideration whether these belonged to Indians or have been borrowed. We do not get the form of a ram (Meṣa) from the clusters of stars of Aśvinī, Bharaṇī and some stars from Kṛttikā. Meṣa happens to be first in order of signs and begins from Aśvinī. Just as we have a definite reference of a Kṛttikādi system having been in vogue before the Aśvinyādi system, we do not find any reference by which it can be said that the order of Rāśis began from a sign other than Meṣa or the Meṣa sign began from a nakṣatra other than Aśvinī; and there is no doubt that these terms were not current in the Vedāṅga period. Hence, it can be easily inferred that these terms came into vogue at a time when the vernal equinox occured in Aśvinī nakṣatra and Meṣa sign simultaneously. The tropical longitude of the star Beta Arietis was 31° 53′ and that of Alpha Arietis 35° 34′ in 1850 A.D. Hence, the years when the longitudes of these stars were zero come to be 31° 53′ × 72 (= 2296)—1850 = 446 B. C. and 35° 34′ × 72 (= 2561)—1850 = 711 B. C. It is, therefore, impossible that the terms Meṣa etc. were known in our country before these dates, the mean of these dates being 579 B. C. Another important fact is that the time when Śravaṇādi system described by the Mahābhārata came in vogue, has been proved to be about 450 B.C. (See page 110), and the Mahābhārata does not contain any reference about Meṣādi terms; hence, it can be safely inferred that these terms were unknown in our country before 500 B. S. It will be shown in Part Two that some of the Siddhāntic works like the old Sūrya-Siddhānta do not belong to a date later than 200 B. C. They do contain the terms Meṣa and others; similarly it can be proved beyond doubt that some of the astronomical (Siddhānta) works were compiled earlier than this date. All these considerations lead one to infer that the Meṣādi terms were introduced in our country about 500 B.S. and the week-day names came into use 500 years before this date. It has already been pointed out that suggesting a system of Rāśis (Meṣa and others) and of week days is not a matter of much importance; what is very important is the calculation of actual positions and motions of planets (See page 108).

v1.c6.s5.t9.14

In short, the lower limit of the Vedāṅga period comes to be 500 B.S.

v1.c6.s5.t9.15

All those original works which contain the Caitrādi terms but neither the Vāra or Rāśi names, must be taken to belong to the Vedāṅga period, since these two must have got entry into them, had these been current in Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa period. The works on astronomy and religion belong to this category, and naturally the ‘ Kalpa Sūtras’ and ‘Smṛti’s come to belong to this category. All works described in Part One, excepting Baudhāyana Sūtra, belong to the Vedāṅga period; and there is no harm if we say that, of these works, those which do not contain any reference of week days, were compiled earlier than 1000 B.S. The date of compilation of each particular work must be decided after considering the work independently. Fresh additions have been made in the text of the Mahābhārata from time to time till 500 B.S. ; the matter of Śravaṇādi system lends a support to this view. Some more interpolations might have been made even after this date; but some portions of the work are very ancient. The astronomical description of the planetary positions definitely points to the age in which Pāṇḍavas ved. This is the author's view.

v1.c6.s5.t9.16

The lower limit of the Vedāṅga period is the upper limit of the Jyotiṣa Siddhānta period.

v1.c6.s5.t9.17

It is needless to say that the limits of the Vedic and the Vedāṅga age as fixed by the author are not very accurate. The ancient history and ancient literature are still matters of research and the above limits are likely to change when the research is made. The author is, however, certain that the lower limit for the Vedic period can not be later than 1500 B.S. and that of Vedāṅga period not later than 200 B.S.

v1.c6.s5.t9.18

IN VEDIC AGE THE YEAR WAS SEASONAL I.E. SOLAR.

v1.c6.s5.t9.19

The so far made discussion must have made it clear that excepting the last few centuries, the year was strictly seasonal or solar throughout the Vedic age. The months were lunar and adjustment to solar year used to be made by interpolating an intercalary month at a suitable place. We find in the Ṛk-Saṃhitā the names of seasons like Śarad, Hemanta etc. used in the sense of a year. This shows that one complete cycle of seasons formed the measure of a year and such a system of maintaining the measure of a year was followed in the Rigveda Saṃhitā age. The lines like :—

v1.c6.s5.t9.20

ऋतुभिर्हं संवत्सरः शक्नोति स्यातुं
ऋ. प्रा. ६. ७. १. १८.

v1.c6.s5.t9.21

“A year can stand only with the help of seasons” indicates the same idea. The derived meaning of the word “Saṃvatsara” is “Saṃvasanti ṛtavaḥ yatra” i.e. year is that period in which the seasons stand completely. These quotations clearly support the view that in Vedic times, by the term year was understood a period of one complete revolution of seasons.

v1.c6.s5.t9.22

Madhu and Mādhava were the months of a year (Saṃvatsara). These indicate seasons. The importance of these months in the Yajurveda Saṃhitā and in all Brāhmaṇa works will be clear from the divine status which these months received. It will also be seen from the terms Aruṇa and others that they are associated with seasons and not with nakṣatras. The names of months current in the major portion of the Vedic age were Madhu and others; the Caitrādi names got introduction in the last period of the age. These names got their association with the nakṣatras and hence, the year calculated on this basis must have been sidereal. It appears from this, that the sidereal year came into use about 2000 B.S., when the Caitrādi names associated with nakṣatras came into vogue; and before this time, people could carry on their affairs with Madhu-Mādhava months and hence it is proved that the year was seasonal (i.e. tropical). Some people might argue that the Caitrādi names must have come into vogue not much later than the Madhvādi name system. But it has been shown (pp.30-31) that there were difficulties for the introduction of Caitrādi names after the nakṣatras got their names and that much time must have elapsed in between. Even without any other support it can be shown that the very fact that Madhvādi names have a divine status in the Vedas and not the Caitrādi, is sufficient for one to infer that a number of centuries must have elapsed before Caitrādi names became current. The nakṣatra occupied by the sun is never visible; hence it is but natural that the seasonal year came into vogue earlier than the sidereal year which is the interval between the sun’s two consecutive coincidences with the same star. Now when the author says that the solar year came into use first and not the sidereal one, it should not be taken to mean that a correct tropical year came into are after the actual difference between the lengths of the two years occame known after studying the precessional motion of equinoxes. They in the Vedic age had the system of interpolating an intercalary month at the proper place so as to maintain the correct relation of lunar months with the seasons, so that the months of Madhu and Mādhava would on average be found to occur in the spring season. Even when a ‘ fixed year ’ came into vogue in the latter part of the Vedic age, the year was to commence with W. S. as ordained by Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa, and other works recommended the commencement of a year with spring. From this, it is clear that their object was throughout that of following a seasonal year and they never dreamt that they are not following a tropical year system just as we in the present time do not suspect the change. Even if Mr. Tilak’s argument be accepted that in Vedic times year commenced from W. S., the commencement of a year with a solstice is nothing else than following a seasonal year, and the year proves to be tropical and not a sidereal (or fixed) one. In short, we find that the seasonal year was in long use before the fixed year and from historical point of view. the tropical year was acceptable to ‘Śrutis’ and it was a natural one. Spring has been described as the ‘mouth’ of a year, Madhu and Mādhava as months of the spring season and the Madhvādi names were current. All these things can not remain true without following a tropical year. The seasons will not be found to occur in the same months by following the nakṣatra-month-system, and an idea of their departure from the usual position is already given on page 132. From this it is proved that it was the tropical year which was acceptable to Śrutis.

v1.c6.s5.t9.23

Almost all aspects of the Yuga-system have been discussed in the preface. According to Āryabhaṭa II, Mercury was behind the sun by about 9° in the beginning of the present Kaliyuga. According to the Sūrya-Siddhānta and Āryabhaṭa I the longitude of the moon’s Apogee was 90° and that of its Node 180°; but Brahmagupta and Āryabhaṭa II quote different values for them.

v1.c6.s5.t9.24

While examining the works of the Manu Smṛti and the Mahābhārata it has been shown that the measures of time units, yugas etc., as given by astronomical (Siddhānta) works, were already defined and fixed. These works are said to give as a criterion of the commencement of yuga the condition that all planets must come together in the beginning of Kaliyuga and of each other Yuga. . (According to some other works all planets come to a close conjunction at the beginning of a Kalpa and come together within a reasonable proximity in that of a Mahāyuga). This criterion or condition is neither found in these works or in any of the works discussed before. On the contrary we find in the Mahābhārata the condition for starting a Kṛtayuga, to be “the coming together of the sun, Jupiter, the moon and the Tiṣya (Puṣya) star” (Vana Parva, 190.90/91). Similarly according to the astronomical works, the Kaliyuga started in the year 3179 B.S. But we do not find in any later works an explicit or implicit mention of this yuga having been so started. No reference to this age or to a criterion of the commencement is found in any of the Purāṇas and the above mentioned condition is also not well known.

v1.c6.s5.t9.25

The current year Śaka 1817 is the 4996th year of Kali elapsed. It shows that so many years have elapsed after the commencement of the Kali era. This era, according to the Sūrya Siddhānta, commenced on Thursday at midnight when it was the mean Amāvasyā of Phālguna. According to some other Siddhāntas it commenced after 15 ghaṭis more, that is on Friday morning. Prof. Whitney has, in his translation of the Sūrya-Siddhānta in English calculated mean positions of planets by accurate European formulae true for the midnight of Thursday, the 17th February 3102 B. C. (Julian period) which is the moment of commencement of Kali. The author has given in the following table these positions and also those calculated by him with the help of Astronomical Tables by Prof. Keropant Chhatre. These tables have been prepared by him with the help of European books on astronomy, and Prof. Whitney has calculated the figures with the help of these European books. The true places of planets at the beginning of Kali as calculated by the Sūrya Siddhānta are also given in a separate column. The author has also given in another column planets’ true places, the calculations of which have been based on Whitney’s mean places, and taking nodes and perihelions from Keropant’s tables. The European tables are proved to be very accurate in modern times and their calculations are verifiable by actual observations of planets in the sky. If these tables are followed, the positions of planets 5000 years ago must be found to be tolerably accurate, if not quite correct.

Places of planets in the beginning of Kali

v1.c6.s5.t10.1

| | Sāyana mean longitudes | | True positions |
| | According to Whitney | According to Chhatre’s tables | European (Sāyana) | According to Sūrya Siddhānta |
| Sun | 301° 45’ 43” | 301° 13’ 42” | 303° 35’ 42” | 2° 07’ 27” |
| Moon | 308 03 50 | 301 36 18 | 312 15 30 | 5 02 46 |
| Moon’s Perigee | 44 56 42 | 67 32 42 | | 90 00 00 |
| Moon’s Node | 148 02 16 | 145 00 00 | 147 53 34 | 180 00 00 |
| Mercury | 268 34 05 | 267 36 42 | 288 03 54 | 358 07 27 |
| Venus | 334 36 30 | 333 45 24 | 316 12 06 | 0 52 12 |
| Mars | 289 48 05 | 289 11 18 | 300 34 18 | 5 42 30 |
| Jupiter | 318 16 07 | 318 04 06 | 317 45 54 | 0 42 00 |
| Saturn | 281 36 18 | 280 02 18 | 278 00 18 | 353 24 57 |

v1.c6.s5.t10.2

The author has not applied the (कालान्तर) time correction to the mean positions of planets calculated by him by Keropant’s tables. Keropant has mentioned a “Kālāntar” [time] correction to be given only to the sun, moon, moon’s perigee and moon’s node. If it be applied to them they would agree with the places given by Whitney; and other planets, even when no “Kālāntar” (time) correction be given to them agree wtin Whitney’s places. This shows that Whitney has not given this correction to the five planets, Mercury and others.

v1.c6.s5.t10.3

The mean longitudes of all planets except Rāhu (moon’s ascending node) are zero, according to the Sūrya Siddhānta. The European positions of planets are Sāyana and those of the S. S. are Nirayana. The measure of the error of our astronomical works is equal to the excess or deficit of the difference between sāyana sun and any sāyana planet and that between the longitudes of the sun and the corresponding planet according to the S. S.

v1.c6.s5.t10.4

We find that the sun's place according to Whitney is in advance of Mercury by about 33° and Venus is in advance of the sun by about 32°. If, therefore, the European tables are correct the error in the mean places of planets calculated according to our works should be taken to be equal to the planetary differences.

First 82 of 126 passages. Read on

Cites (20)