Bharatiya Jyotihshastra (History of Indian Astronomy), translated by R. V. Vaidya v2.c12.s10.41

v2.c12.s10.41

The above table will show that there is unanimity of opinion about the following 14 stars :—Kṛttikā, Rohiṇī, Punarvasu, Puṣya, Maghā, U. Phalguni. Citrā, Svāti, Jyeṣṭhā, Abhijit, Śravaṇa, Śatabhiṣak, P. Bhadrapadā and Revati, Opinion differs regarding the rest. There is no sense in trying to see whose opinion seems probable, because, it cannot be at all claimed that the longitudes and latitudes of stars given in our old works agree completely with those of all or some stars chosen by any one of them. The longitudes and latitudes of stars given by our works may not be found to agree either because they have not been recorded accurately or because, it is not known to what time they belong; or else, because, they have been calculated by the modern method of calculating ancient longitudes and latitudes, which itself may not be quite accurate. Nevertheless the fact remains that they do not agree. Hence, those stars are to be determined as junction stars whose co-ordinates agree at least approximately. It so often happens that one out of the two or three stars in a nakṣatra shows a close agreement in point of latitude but not longitude, while quite another agrees in point of longitude. This being so, some have laid a stress on the agreement in latitude and others in longitude. Some others have paid attention to the direction of their position in the group. Thus each author has paid attention to the direction of their position in the group. Thus each author has some point or other to support his view. When once it is decided that a particular nakṣatra is the same as some particular cluster of the present times, i.e. Bharaṇī is the same as Musca known to Europeans, the question of deciding which star in the cluster is the junction star naturally remains controversial. If, however, some one adopted some star outside the cluster as junction star, it will be a mistake unless he has some ground for doing so. Thus, for instance, there is a cluster of star visible in the sky, known as Mṛga and its Śirṣa” (i.e. the head of the antelope ; Orion). One of the three stars forming the head of the antelope must be taken as the junction star of Mṛgaśirṣa. But KEROPANT'S star is outside the region. This is of course an error. All works have described the shape of the nakṣatra Mūla as resembling the tail of a lion. But Ketkar's star remains far away from the cluster and hence should be taken to be erroneous. The planetary tables by Keropant have given by mistake 27° in place of 37° as the declination of Mūla; Keikar appears to have committed the error because of this. Apart from these considerations every investigator can be said to be justified in his views.