-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Given -12o -9o +9o +25o +9o -12o -9o 0o
degrees [vakrasta][vakra] [or+24] [vakra][vakrasta]
[asta]
Given 10 14 18 30 18 16 8 114
'days'
Correct 8 16 18 30(?28)18 18 6(?8) 114
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In columns 6 and 7 it should be -9o and -12o, or at least -10o -11o though the text etters are unmistakable.
Note 2. The constant for subtraction, 14,681 shows that the planet is in superior conjunction, since the epoch position of the planet must agree with that given by modern astronomy and other [Siddhantas], at least with in a few degrees. (See table appended). If so, the Table of cycle motions given should begin and close with superior conjunction. BUt in the Table given, the cycle begins and closes with the inferior conj. as can be seen from the retrograde motion with which the Table begins and ends, and the most rapid motion (aticara) coming at the middle.
The astronomer of very inferior calibre, who has made this interpolation, has been misled by the two sets of heliacal rising and setting in the case fo the inferior planets, Mercury and Venus. He has wanted to begin the motions with the rising in the east and setting in the west, to fall in line with others not realising that this occurs during it sretrogradee motion which falls at the inferior conjunction coming in the middle. This is another proof that VM cannot be the author of this set of dealing with teh star-planets. (He has committed the same mistake int he similar case of Venus, where the mistake can be seen glaringly when the true Venus got is compared with that of the other[siddhantas] or modern astronomy). If he
does want to begin with rising in the east and end with the inferior conj. and to do this he must add to the days to be subtracted half the cycle days, equal to 573/29 days. (The cycle days=3312./.29=1146/29).
Next follows Jupiter, in three verses:
®úʽþiÉä¹]õ (delete)ÊuùªÉ¨É¶É®úÉι]õʦÉ& (¹]õlÉÉÆ)
xÉÉMÉ (xÉMÉÉ) ½þiÉä ÊuùʴɹɪɷÉ(º´É) ®úÉʷɽþiÉä*
ºÉ{iɽþiÉä näù´ÉMÉÖ®úÉè (®úÉä&)
¦É´ÉÉxiÉ Ênù´ÉºÉÉ ÊiÉ®úÉƺÉÆMɨªÉÉ& (ÊxÉ®Æú¶ÉºªÉ)** 73**
ºÉ´Éè%EòÉ (EòÉÇ) iºÉƶÉÉävªÉÉ&
¹ÉÉäb÷¶ÉǦÉuùÉÇnù¶ÉÉäÊnùiÉ& |ÉÉEÚò (SªÉɨÉ)*
EÞòiÉʴɹɪÉè& EÞòiÉ´ÉänùÉ&
ºÉ{iÉiªÉÉ ºÉÉhÉÇ´ÉÉ& ¹Éι]õ&**74**
xÉ´É ÊnùÎM¦É& ¶ÉÚxªÉÉEòÉÇ&
[ºÉÉ]hÉÞ¶ÉxªÉÉ ®úºÉº´É®úÉtÉʦÉ& (¶SÉè´É)*
¶ÉÚxªÉEÞòÊiÉ (iÉè uùÉÇÊjÉ®úÉiÉÂ
iÉÉäiÉ֨ɺiÉMÉÉ (´ÉiÉÉä%º´ÉMÉ&) ¹ÉÉäb÷¶ÉʦɮúEÇòiÉ (EòÉÇ)**75**
73. Deduct 16,522 from the 'days'. Multiply the remainder by 7 and divide by 2752. Divide the remainder here by 7. The 'days' from conjunction are got.
74-75. All degrees given are to be subtracted from the sun. In 16 'days' he moves 12o and rises in the east. Then in 54, 70, 49, 88, 40, days he moves 44o, 64o, 120o, 76o, 32o. Then he sets in the west, moves 12o in 16 days and joins the sun.
Note 1. The first foot of verse 73 is faulty containg 3 [matras] extra, and corrupt. So it has been corrected. The rest of verses 73 and 74 are with TS's emendations. In 75, all emendations are TS'S, excepting those for grammar.
Note 2. The cycle is 2752 ./.7=393 1/7 days. The days and degrees are :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
Degrees -12o -44o -64o -120o -76o -32o -12o -360o
Given days 16 54 70 109 88 40 16 393
Near correct days16 54 70 109 88 40 16 393
Venus is dealt with in 3 verses:
xɪÉxÉÉEÇòʨÉÊiÉnÖù (vÉÞiÉÒxuù)xÉä
ÊuùMÉÖhÉä °ü (°ü){ÉäÎxuùªÉè& º´É (ªÉä·É)®èú¦ÉÇHäò*
¶Éä¹É& (¹ÉÆ)ªÉkÉnù (où)ʱÉiÉÆ
¦ÉÞMÉÖiÉxɪÉÊxÉ®Æú¶ÉÊnù´ÉºÉÉ&ºªÉÖ&**76*.
ʴɹɪÉèxÉÇ´ÉEòʴɽþÒxÉ&
|ÉÉMÉÖÊnùiÉκ´ÉÊlÉ[ʦÉ]®äúEò{É (ªÉ) ¨É½þÒxÉ&*
´ÉºÉÖEÞòiªÉÉ ÊiÉlªÉÖxÉ (lªÉÚxÉ&)
EÞòiÉÉι]õʦÉ& ºÉ[{É\SÉEòÉϺjɶÉiÉÂ]**77**
¹É¹]õÉ ({É\SÉÉ) [¹]õ] EäòxÉ ºÉnù¶É (¶É&)
ÊxÉ®ÆúºÉiÉÉä (¶ÉiÉÉä) iÉÉä ʴɱÉÉä¨ÉMÉ& ¡ò·ÉÉiÉÂ*
=nùªÉ (nèù) ÊiÉ ÊlÉ% (ÊxÉ) ®Æú¶ÉÉEòɱÉÉä (±Éä)
xÉªÉ (|ɪÉÉ) ÊiÉ ´ÉÉ (SÉÉ)ºiÉÆ Ê´ÉxÉÉlÉ (±ÉÉä¨É) MÉÊiÉ&**78**
76. Dedcut 1,18,122 from the 'days'. Multiply by 2 and divide by 1151. Take the remainder and divide by 2. We have the 'days' from the conjunction of Venus.
77-78. In 5 'days' Venus lags by 9o, and rises in the east. In 15 days he lags 21o. In 64 days days he lags 15o. In 164 days he gains 10o, and joins the sun. Then, moving in accordance with teh reversed order of the days for cycles given, he rises after the days given from setting to conjunction (i.e, 40 days) in the west, and moves till he reaches the setting in retrograde (and getting into the inferior conjunction)section.
NOte 1. I have corrected [mitindu] into [dhrtindu] for agreement with the sun in superior conjunction which alone fits. TS's correction [mahindu] does not bring agreement with the sun either at superior conj. or inferior conj. There can be another possible correction [matindu] [mati is 8.]. In the 64 days, flanking the retrograde, the days may be a little more or less, since a small error of observation can produce a difference of a large number of days. The lacunae is filled by me with [sa-'pancakas-trim'sat], meaning 35o, to fit the number of degrees wanted to make up the total zero, and fitting the number of days given. TS's emendation, [krtastabhih] will be far from fitting the total. Moreover, their filling the lacuna by [sesuh] meaning 5o is quite inadequate to make up zero. I have emended [sastastakena] into [pancastakena], meaning 5X8=40, which will fit the number of days. Also, 10o synodic motion there requires 40 days and it is also the period from setting to going into superior conjunction. [sasta] is patently wrong
spelling, and [sastastakena] is meaningless. But TS keep it, which is wrong. That this is the segment of heliacal setting to conj. cna be inferred from [udayati] given for the next segment, and 10o for heliacal setting and rising at superior conj. is given by many [siddhantas]. The other minor emendations are TS's.
Note 2. 118,122 seems to be a very large subtactive constant, equal to more than 300 years, while all others are very near VM's time. But I cannot think of any other number to fit.
Note 3. The maximum elongation is seen to be 45o, correctly, (cf.Table).
Degrees -9o -21o 15o +35o +10o +10o +35o 15o -2 -9o 0
[vak- [vakra] asta asta asta [vak-
rasta] rasta]
Given 5 5 64 164 40 40 164 64 15 5 576
days
Correct 5 15 64 164 40 40 164 64 15 5 576
days
Note 4. The remark about Mercury, that the cycles begin and end with the superior conjnction according to tghe subtractive constant given, but the motions in the cycles begins and end with the inferior conjunction, holds in the case of Venus also, showing thereby that the author is an ignorant imposter, and cannot be VM. To correct the fault, 287 3/4 'days' should be added or subtracted from the subtractive constant.
Example. Compute Venus at 1,20,553 days from epoch:
If the subtractive constant given in the text is used, 1,18,817.5 (already found in the example in Mars)-1,18,122=695.5.
This X 2 ./. 1151 leaves the reaminder 240.
This divided by 2 gives 120 'days' gone in the cycle. We have for the first 5 days-9o, and the next 15 days-21o and the next 64 days-15o and the remaining 36 days, 36X35./.164=7o 40', totally-37o 20'. Adding the sun 17o.5 already found in the example for Mars, the true longitude of Venus is -20o, i.e. 340o. (The example in the [Saurasiddhanta] for the same date has given 46). The error in Venus, in using this method here, is
66o. On the other hand, let us use the cycle order re-arranged to begin from superior conjunction. It is 10o for 40 days, 35o for 164 days etc. We have 10o for 40 days, and the remaining 80 days, 80X35o./.164=17o, total 27o. Adding the sun, 17o.5, we have, true Venus, 44o.5. This is close to the correct 46o. This expose the ignorance of the impostor.
Saturn follows in the next three verses:
Ê´ÉvÉÞÊiÉ¶É ®úºÉ¹É]ÂõEò´ÉEÇò (delete)¶É¶ÉÉRÂóEäò
jÉ´vÉä vÉÞÊiÉ°üpù¦É ÊVÉiÉä %OÉRóiÉä*
ºÉÉè®úº´É ºªÉ) vÉÞÊiÉ [¦É]¹]õÉʦɮú(ι]õ&)
ºÉÉvÉÌEò (SÉ) ½þ ÊxÉ°üÊnùiÉ& |ÉÉEÂò**79**
+¹]õxÉ´ÉÊiÉVªÉÉÇ (iªÉÉ) xÉ´ÉÊiÉ-
nÇù±ÉÆ SÉ ¨ÉxÉÖ ¦É ºjɪÉÉänù¶ÉʴɽþÒxÉÉ&*
MÉÖhÉ°üuèùUô ¶ÉÚxªÉÉEòÉÇ&
nÚùlÉÚxÉäxÉ ¶ÉiÉäxÉ ¶É ʶÉxÉ´ÉEò¨É **80**
+ÊiÉVÉMÉ... ®úEòÉÇ[VÉMÉiªÉÉ ºÉÉvÉÉÇEòÉÇ]-
®ú(xÉ) ºiɨÉäiªÉÆ (iªÉ) iÉÉä xÉ´ÉÊiÉ(EÖò)ʦÉÌ´É (ÌxÉ) ®Æú¶É¨É *
¹ÉÉäb÷¶É ºÉÉvÉÉÇiºÉÉè (xÉ ºÉÉè)®ú-
·É®úÊiÉ ®ú´Éä ººÉ´ÉÇnùÉ ½þÒxÉ& **81*.
70. Subtract 16,518 from the 'days', multiply by 3 and divide by 1118. Take the remainder here and divide by 3. The days left over in the cycle are got. In 18 days Saturn lags behind by 16 1/2, and rises in the east.
80-81. In 98, 14, 113, 98, and 13'days' he falls behind 90 1/2o, 13o, 120o, 91o,and 12 1/2o respectively. Then Saturn sets in the west, and joins the sun passing 16 1/2o in 19 days.
Note 1. In verse 79, ¹É]ÅõEò´ÉEÇò is patently extra, forming syllables not required for the foot, and has been deleted by me as also by TS. +¹]õ ʦÉ& is corrected into +ι]õ& ´É¤É ±ÉÉ, as also by TS to conform to grammar and facts.
In the rest of the minor corrections there is no difference between our corrections.
In verse 80, I have retained the Êuù in uùªÉÚ´ÉäxÉ, while TS have made it tÖ, meaning one day, which is not necessary, and which leads into trouble later, needing further correction. The minor corrections are common to both. In 81, I have filled up the lacuna by (iªÉÉ ºÉÉvÉÇ) while TS have made it
(ÊiÉʦɮúvÉÇ).The word is +ÊiÉVÉMÉiÉÒ and not +ÊiÉVÉMÉÊiÉ&, which alone can justify TS's... ÊiÉʦÉ& Also only ºÉÉPÉÉÇEÇò can mean 12 1/2, but their +PÉÉÇEÇò can mean only 6. I have corrected xÉ´ÉÊiÉ into xÉ´ÉEÖò keeping the. But TS have corrected it into +ÊiÉvÉÞÊiÉ, making unnecessary changes in the lettering, though both of us mean the same. The rest of the corrections are minor, and common to bot of us.
Note3. The text ends abruptly without the usual verses giving details about the author, his parentage, date fo writing etc.
Note 4. The colophon is simply "The star-planets of the [Pauli'sa siddhanta] ends". But after this is found details about the scribe, his lineage, his time of writings, viz. 1673 Vikrama Samvat, and 1538 ['Saka], equal to 1616 AD, and the purpose of his copying the work, ("for his own reading and helping others" i.e., other astronomers).
THE 'SAKA ERA Of VARAHAMIHIRA ['SALIVAHANA 'SAKA]*
Introduction
With reference to chronology the word 'Saka is used in two senses: (1) As a common noun meaning any era (as for e.g., in the terms [Yudhisthira 'Saka], Vikrama 'Saka, Malava 'Saka, 'Salivahana 'Saka etc). and , (2) As a proper noun to mean a particular era called the 'Saka Era is the same as what later is generally referred to as the ['Salivahana 'Saka] which commenced with the month of [Caitra] occurring in 78 A.D., i.e., at the end of 3179 years of the Kali Era, for it can be shown that all astronomical works and commentaries thereon, wherever they mention a 'Saka ERa, mean only the 'Salivahana Era, starting, as mentioned above, from 3179 Kali elapsed. But some like the late T.S.Narayana Sastri, Gulshan Rai, Kota Venkatachelam, and V.Thiruvenkatacharya (VT) take the word to mean a certain Cyrus Era or Andhra Era, Which they say, started from 550 B.C. Kane mentions two others of the group: Jagannatha Rao, Age of Mahabhara war (1931), C.V.Vaidya starting the 'Saka-Kala from Buddha's [nirvana]. We noe find that T.S.N is the source for all these people, and almost every argument used by them is his. In his Age of 'Sankara he has used a [Yudhisthira Era] of 3140 39 B.C., and a 'Saka Era of 576 BC, which he later shifted to 550 B.C. Still another view is expressed by K.Rangarajan, who takes it to mean an era which
commenced from 523/22 B.C. with the first Viceroy fo India appointed by the Persian Emperor. They also try to show that it never means the ['Salivahana 'Saka]. What astounds us is that even where there is clear evidence that 'Salivahana 'Saka is to be taken, (in the shape of statements that 3179 is to be added to the years gone in the 'Saka Era to get the years gone in Kali) these scholars ignore it implicitly as in teh case of the 'Saka Kala mentioned by Brahmagupta and [Bhaskara] II. When this is the fate of such clear evidence, we need not be surprised if they identify with their alleged Cyrus or Andhra Era, the 'Saka Era mentioned in giving the epochs of Karanas (astronomical manuals) as in the case fo the [Pancasiddhantika](PS), the [Khandakhadyaka] or the [Laghumanasa], or in giving the date of a work given by the author, as for instance by [Bhattotpala] at the end of his commentary on the [Brhajjataka] or in inscriptions like the [Aihole] Inscription, or in sundry other places as in the [Brhatsamhita] I.13, in all of which cases the identification has got to be made by examining the months and [tithis] and [Ksepas] mentioned therewith.
The reason why they want to identify the ['Sakakala] with the so-called Cyrus or Andhra Era is this: They believe that there was a "plot hatched by European Indologists" to post-date by several centuries the ancient events of Indian history, and that most Indian Indologists have become unconscious victims of that plot. They try to show that the [Yudhisthira] and [Saptarsi Eras] are every-where identical, and were actually started 25 years after the beginning of the Kali Era. Using this they try to show that it is [Samudra Gupta] of the [Gupta] dynasty that is to be identified with the Sandracottus of the Greks, and not Candragupta Maurya, which latter identification has been taken by the European Indologists as the sheet-anchor of Indian chronology, and the chronology of the dynaties before and after that time is established thereform. Now, the identification of 'Sakakala] with 'Salivahana 'Saka stands in their way. Hence their attempt to identify it with the so-called Cyrus or Andhra Era whose very existence is a matter of dispute, there being no evidence for it.
Most historians have not taken these people seriously, thinking that the extravagance of their claims would be a deterrent to the acceptance of their views. But attempts have been made by Professors Gulshan Rai and
VT to give astronomical and mathematical proofs to show that [Varahamihira (VM) belongs to 123 B.C. and not to 505 A.D., (as he is generally believed to be ), and thereby that the 'Sakakala mentioned by VM is the Cyrus or Andhra Era. They also attempt to show that the 'Sakakala mentioned by Bhattotpala as stated above is the Cyrus or Andhra ERa, and therefore the 'Saka year 888 given him corresponds to 338 or339 A.D., which would mean that Brahmagupta, [aryabhata] [Bhaskara] I etc. must precede this date. The present article is intended to expose the hollowness of the above theory and to show that the astronomical arguments addueced in support of it (which to the lay reader may look formidable) are erroneous, and thus knock the bottom out of the claims of this set of writers.
[Varahamihira] uses the word ['Sakakala] in a few places in his works.
(1) In the [Brhatsamhita] he says:
[asan maghasu munayah sasati prthvim yudhisthire
nrpatau/
[sad-dvika-panca-dvi-yutah 'Sakakalas tasya
rajna's ca//XIII.3
"The Sapta-rsis were in the asterismal segment [Magha] when [Yudhisthira] was ruling over the earth. Any date by the 'Saka Era plus2526 gives the time from that king, i.e., the date in the [Yudhisthira Era]."
(2) In his [Pancasiddhantika](PS) the following occurs:
sapta-a'svi-veda-sankhyam 'Sakakalam apasya
caitra-'sukladu/
ardhastamite bhanau yavanapure
somadivasadye.//I.8//
"Deducting 427 of the 'Saka Era, (from the years in the Era) at the beginning of the light half of Caitra, which falls near sunset at [Yavanapura], beginning a Monday..."
(3) Br.Sam. VIII 20-21. This will be discussed, later.
(4) In [Pancasiddhantika], XII.2. but it is not used by these scholars.
In (1), a synchronism is found between the 'Saka Era and the [Yudhisthira Era. We shall not discuss this synchronism here but rest content with saying that whatever be the 'Sakakala mentioned in (2), it is
highly probable that the same is mentioned by (1). In (2), it is clear, the epoch of the [Pancasiddhantika] is given as 427 'Saka elapsed, which means the date of the work must be c.427 'Saka, and thus VM's time can be fixed. If as VT and others say the 'Sakakala meant here is the Cyrus or Andhra Era of 550 B.C., then the date of VM must be 427 years after 550 B.C., i.e., 123 B.C., which Gulshan Rai and VT have tried to establish by their special arguments. If it is same as the 'Salivahana 'Saka, then VM's date must be 427 years after 78 A.D., i.e., 505 A.D.
Here we do not propose to go into the question whether there was a 'Saka Era beginning from 550 B.C. or whether it is necessary to postulate such an era in view of the reference in the [Brhatsamhita 'sloka] quoted above which is discussed in the next paper 'The untenability of the 'Postulated 'Saka era of 550 B.C.' We shall confine ourselves to showing that the 'Sakakala of VM's PS is the 'Saligahana 'Saka, and therefore 427 'Saka (elapsed) corresponds to 505 A.D. As we have stated before, we shall also show that the special arguments to the contrary advocated by Gulshan Rai and VT and their conclusion that VM'S date is 123 B.C. cannot stand.
Internal Evidence for 'Salivahana 'Saka
There is plenty of internal evidence to show that the date meant by VM is 505 A.D. and not 123 B.C. It consists of the many [Ksepas] ( i.e. values of the Mean longitudes etc. at Epoch) found in the work, and the names of certain authors which it mentions . We shall take the [Ksepas] first.
In PS I.14 VM gives a [Saura] period of 1,80,000 years or revolutions of the Sun, in which there are 66,389 intercalary months and 10,45,095 suppressed [tithis]. From this we can get that there are in this period 2,406,389 revolutions of the Moon and 65,746,575 civil days. Comparing this with the Yuga-elements derivable from the Khandakhadyaka of Brahmagupta (which follows the [Ardharatrika] system of [Aryabhata] and whose elements are identical with those of a [Pauli'sa Siddhanta] wuoted by [Bhattotpala] in his commentary of the [Brhat Samhita], -not the [Pauli'sa] of the PS- We find that this is only a sub-yuga forming a twentyfourth part of the yuga given by them, and this suggests that the Yuga-elements of the
original [Saura Siddhanta], of which the [Saura] of the PS is a compendium, are identical with those of the [Khandakhadyaka] etc. mentioned above, these elements, therfore, may also be called hereafter, the [Saura] elements. Now, all these systems have arrived at 0o Mean longitude for the Sun, Moon, Mars etc., 3 [ra'sis] for the Moon's [ucca] (Apogee), and 6 [rasis] for [Rahu's] head viz., midnight at Ujjain, Thursday/Friday, 17/18, Febrauary, 3102 B.C. Taking that 'Saka 427 mentioned in PS I.8, refers to 'Salivahana Saka 427, (equivalent to 3606 Mean Solar years after the beginning of Kali), we have 1,317,123 days, 3 [nadis],9 [vinadis], after the midnight at Ujjain, Sunday/Monday, 20/21 March 505 A.D. The [Saura] of the [PS] takes this midnight as the Epoch for the compuation of its Star-planets (Tara-grahas), viz., Mars etc. If we compute the Mean Mars etc. for this epoch, using the Saura elements, the results agree with the respective Ksepas given in the PS to the second in the case of Jupiter and Saturn, with in 4" in the case of Mars and Venus, and 7" in the case of Mercury. Even this small difference is due to VM having arrived at the Ksepas using the shortcut given by him in the [karana] and the number of days gone in Kali as the [Ahargana] (days from epoch). If we also do the same there is complete agreement in teh case of Venus also, and the difference is reduced to 2" in the case of Mars. In the case of Mercury there is difference of a few seconds still, which may be due either to VM desiring to give its (Ksepa) correct to the minute only, or to sone defect in the manuscript reading which has omitted the seconds; and one of the manuscripts has actually a reading '[vilipti]' here. For the Mean Sun and Moon, and the Moon's Ucca and [Rahu], the epoch taken is the Midday at Ujjain just preceding the epoch of the Star-planets, i.e., the midday of Sunday. Here too, checking the Ksepas in the manner given for the Star-planets, we find perfect agreement with in 4" in the case of the [Ucca]. In the case [Rahu] the available manuscripts are so vitiated that Thibaut and Sudhakara Dvivedi (T-S) have failed to give the Ksepa fully. Using the letters available in the manuscripts, the relevant verse may be read as:
[trighana'sataghne navakaikapaksaramendu-
dahanasat-sahite/
svarayamavasubhutarnavagunadhrti-bhakte
Kramad rahaoh//IX.6//]
The Ksepa for [Rahu] enunciated in this verse as reconstructed above, agrees within 1" with its value according to the [khandakhadyaka]elements.
This perfect agreement is the reason why S.B. Dikshit has retained the date March 505 A.D. in spite of the difficulties he encountered in interpreting PS I.8 with reference to the [Saura]. For, no date, within many thousand years before or after 505 A.D. will agree with teh Ksepas in the manner shown above, not to speak of 123 B.C. When such is the case, VT quoting from Dikshit, a passage, which to those that have not read Dikshit's article in full will appear to involve an irremediable contradiction, says that 505 A.D. should be abandoned in favour or 123 B.C. on account of this. As the manner of VT's quoting from the article may create an impression in the reader's minds which Dikshit did not intend, and as VT himself concludes from the quotation that the agreement in the Ksepas discovered by Dikshit is null and void, and as he does not realise (as seen from his remarks under the quotation) that if he gives 123 B.c. for VM, he still has the responsibility to point out that the [Ksepas] agree with his date, we intend making the discussion a little elaborate so that we may give [Dikshit's] views in full with some pertinent observations on them.
The [Saura] Epoch occurs before the True [Vai'sakha 'Sukla] Pratipad, ending on Tuesday. Dikshit wants to reconcile this with the statement in PS I. 8, [caitra-'sukladau]. He considers the point that according to Mean reckoning, it is 'Adhika'-Caitra 'Sukla, but dismisses it, giving two objections: i. Why does not VM use the Epoch? Dikshit concludes by saying that '[caitra-'sukladau]' might stand, because [Amanta-Vai'sakha-'Sukla] is [Caitra-'Sukla] according to [Purnimanta] reckoning. so there is no troble at all for Dikshit as far as this goes. Therefore therw is no need for VT to abandon 505 A.D., go to 123 B.C., and show that the Caitra 'Sukla Pratipad of this year occurs on Wednesday, which weekday also is admissible according to one manuscript reading.(Cf. the readings given above). It should be remembered that VT can score a point only if the weekday, viz., Wednesday of the Caitra 'Sukla Pratipad of 123 B.C. alone can effect the reconciliation, and not the Tuesday of the Caitra 'Sukla Pratipad of 505 A.D.
But really speaking, there is no need to reconcile the [Saura] with any
part of PS I. 8, because it has reference only to the Romaka and the [Pauli'sa]. (If it can be applied to the Saura also, as indeed it can, it is good, but we have no right to demand it as Dikshit does) PS I. 8-10 give the computation of [Ahargana] according to the Romaka; and I.8 and 11 (and perhaps also 12 and 13) according to the Pauli'sa. I.8 gives the Epoch, which is thus the same for both. The Epoch is the beginning of Caitra 'Sukla which ends 427 'Saka, and the exact time is sunset at Yavanapura beginning Monday, i.e., 7 [nadis], 20 [vinadis] after sunset at Ujjain. This is equivalent to 37 [nadis] 20 [vindis] after Ujjain sunrise on Sunday, 20 th March 505 A.D. The [Ahrgana] with which to compute the Mean Sun etc. must be reckoned from this point for Romaka and the Pauli'sa, and their Ksepas are for this point. The expression Caitra-'sukladau is an indication that the months gone are to be counted from Caitra in computing the [Ahrgana], and the words "beginning Monday" is a check for the [Ahargana], Monday being stated to be the first day of the [Ahargana]. For, the [Ahargana] got by computation may be a day more or less than the correct one (a fact well known to astronomers) because the 'varying' True Tithis has got to be used in the formula; and checking by Monday beginning from the Epoch, viz., 0 Ahargana, it may happen that one day has got to be added or subtracted. This can be made clear by an example.
Problem: What is the Ahargana for Saturday beginning, next to the Epoch?
By counting we see we must get 5 days for [Ahargana]. Let us noe compute it. By the Romaka or Pauli'sa (or even Saura) almanac, the tithi gone at Saturday beginning is Caitra 'Sukla Caturthi. Using it in the above formulae enunciated in PS I. 8-11, 4 is got as [Ahargana]. But counting from Monday, 4 will give only Friday beginning. So we must add 1, and give 5 as the correct [Ahargana] if it should agree with Saturday beginning. We see here the use of the check. This is the purpose for which the weekday beginning the Epoch is given, and it si not merely to satisfy the curiosity of the reader. From this we can see that'Monday' is necessary, and 'Tuesday' or 'Wednesday' willbe wrong. So in PS I.8, 'soma-divasadye' or 'soma-divasadyah' must have been VM's original
reading. 'Bhauma' must have been a scribal error, or the correction of some reviosor who did not understand what was necessary, but thought thatthe weekday of the True 'Suklapratipada gone must be given here, and this must have given rise to 'saumya', a mixing of the two. Here T-S have rightly given the emendation 'soma-divasadya'. We may venture to give another suggestion, even if it may not appear very convincing to some. The emendation of T-S is not really essential and we can adopt the manuscipt reading 'saumya' as such and take it in the [yaugika] (derivative ) sense, meaning 'day pertaining to the Moon', i.e. Monday. Though there is the dictum 'Rudhir yogam apaharati' ('the meaning obtained by usage is stronger than that got by derivation'), still at such an ancient period as VM's, when the weekdays must have come into use very recently, the word [Saumya-divasa] might not have become [rudha] in [budha-vara] as it is noe. Also when other things require the derivative sense, we are permitted to abandon the [rudha] sense.
The above discussion has been necessaitated here by a desire to remove any doubt created in the readers' minds by Dikshit's dissatisfaction, which may be interpreted as going against the case for 505 A.D.
We may now proceed to show that the Ksepas of the Romaka and the Pauli'sa also as well as the [adhimasa] and [avama'sesa] of their rules for [ahargana], agree with 505 A.D. and not with 123 B.C. We have seen that the epoch for the Romaka and Pauli'sa is 37 [nadis], 20 [vinadis] from sunrise at Ujjain on Sunday, 20 March 505 A.D. (It must be noted that Dikshit does not question this,) The Romaka Mean Sun at Epoch can be seen to be 359o 34 1/4 by taking the [ahargana] as zero in PS VIII. 1, and working with the Ksepa left. This means that 26 [nadis] after Epoch, the Mean Solar month Mesa begins. In the same way we get the Mean Moon at Epoch from PS VIII.4, to be 356o 12' using the emended reading [Krtastanacakhaika]'; if the reading '[Krtastanavakaika]' found in the manuscript and followed by TS and Dikshit is used, it is 359o 19' at Epoch for TS, and 2o24' for Dikshit who taken that the Moon is given for sunset at Ujjain. From this we see that the Mean New Moon according to out interpretation will take place at 16 [nadis], 36[vinadis] after Epoch, i.e., 9 [nadis], 24 [vinadis] before the Mean Sun comes to Mesa. According to TS's value for the Moon, it is 24 [nadis], 42 [vinadis] before the Mean Sun
at Mesa; and according to Dikshit, 32 [nadis. It must be noted that accoriding to all the three interpretations, the Mean New Moon end begins the Mean Caitra and is very near the Epoch. The corresponding Ksepas of the Pauli'sa also will be found to give the same result. Thus the word Caitra in PS i. 8 presents no difficuylty, as it is mentioned only in relation to the Romaka and the Pauli'sa. Also, the [avama] and the [adhimasa 'sesas] fo the Romaka and the Pauli'sa found in PS I.9-11, agree, within the limits of accuracy, with the time fo the day when the respective New Moon occurs, and its distance from the beginning of the Mean Solar year as found from PS VIII and III. From the fore-going facts we see that the beginning of Caitra should fall very near the beginning of the Mean Solar year, which it does if we take 505 A.D. If 123 B.C. is taken, it is about 20 days away, and so there is disagreement with the Ksepas of PS I.8-11, and those of the Sun and the Moon in PS III, VIII and IX.
In the case of the [Saura], an examination of the Sun's and Moon's Ksepas given in PS IX. 1-2 will show that the Mean Solar year ends at 3 [nadis], 9 [vinadis] after midnight, Sunday/Monday, 20/21 March, (as we have already shown), and the Mean New Moon falls about 12 [nadis], 30[vinadis] after the Mean Solar year. Thus there is a Mean [Adhimasa] following the Epoch of the Star planets, i.e., midnight, which can be called Caitra, as Dikshit himself has accepted. As it is very close to (i.e. only 12 [nadis], 30 [vinadis] from) the beginning of the Mean Solar year, and as in computing the [Ahargana] the practice is to see whether an [Adhimasa] ahs taken place or not in the months gone used for reckoning, and adjust the number of [adhimasas] got by adding one or reducing the adhimasas by one, by treating a large [adhimasa-sesa] as unity or not counting one just got by computation, no harm will ensure if this [Adhika-Caitra] is treated as regular Caitra, taking the previous regular Caitra as [Adhikaphalguna]. And there is the advantage of dispensing with a Ksepa for months gone at Epoch. So even if PS I.8 applies to teh [Saura] as [Dikshit] thinks, the objection which he has to using the term '[caitradau]' for this vanishes, and there is no need to explain it in the manner he has done. Thus all the difficulties raised by Dikshit are answered, and not a trace of any objection for 505 A.D. is left.
We may now proceed to give another piece of evidence to show that the date cannot be 123 B.C. In PS XV we find the following 'sloka:
[Lankardharatrasamaye dinapravrttim jagada
caryabhatah//
bhuyas sa eva suryodayat praha Lakayam//20//
Here is a reference made by VM to [Aryabhata] and his two works, the well-known [Aryabhatiya], and his less known work referred to by later authors as his [Ardharatrika] System, manuscripts of which are yet to be discovered, but whose nature is fully given by [Bhaskara]I (6th-7th cent). in his [Mahabhaskariya]. In the [Kalakriyapada] of his [Aryabhatiya], [Aryabhata] says:
[sastyabdanam sastir yada vyatitas traya's ca
yugapadah/
tryadhika vim'satir abdas tadeha mama janmano
'titah//10//
This says that at 3600 Kali (expired) [Aryabhata] had completed twenty-three years of age, and 3600 Kali is 499 A.D. VM's reference is certainly to this [Arybhata] as can be gathered from the mention of him as the author of bothy the [Ardharatrika] and the [Audayika] systems. It follows from this that VM must be later or at least a contemporary of this [Aryabhata]. So VM can belong to 505 A.D. and not to 123 B.C. Thus all internal evidence and we have seen plentlyof it -points to 505 A.D. as the time of VM.
The [Ayanamsa argument examined
Now Profs. Rai and VT have advanced an argument based on [Ayanam'sa] to show that VM must be as early as 123 B.C. Being interspersed with mathematics, this argument may seem unassailable to some, unless its hollowness is exposed.
Being more full, we may discuss VT first. What VT says may be put succinctly as follows: (i) At the time of VM the Summer Solstice was at the end of the asterismal segment [Punarvasu], (or what comes to the same thing, the Vernal Equinox had a longitude of 3o 20' reckoned from the zero point of the Ecliptic), as gathered from VM's own statements in the PS and the [Brhat Samhita]. (ii) Taking the [Ayanam'sa] (i.e. the total precession) to
be zero at VM's time, there is an [Ayanam'sa]of 28o 15' in April 1909 A.D. (It comes to this : The Vernal Equinox has receded 28o 15' from the original position of 3o 20', and its position in 1909 is 335o5' from the zero point of the Ecliptic). (iii) Using the correct rate of precession (ayana-calana) per annum, 50".2585-nX0".000225, where n is the number of years before 1909, for a precession of 28o 15' to take place, n must be 2031 years. (iv) This means 2031 years before 1909, i.e. in 123 B.C., the [Ayanam'sa] was zero, and therefore 123 B.C. is the date of PS.
We admit that if (i)and (ii) are correct, (iii) and (iv) follow automatically. But (i) and (ii) are not correct, as we shall show. Relating (i) there are the following three 'slokas of VM, which are quoted by VT also :
[a'slesardhad daksinam uttaram ayanam raver
dhanisthadyam/
nunam kadacid asid yenoktam purvasastresu//
sampratam ayanam savituh karkatakadyam
mrgadita's canyat/
uktabhavo vikrtih pratyaksapariksanair vyaktih//
Br. Sam. III. 1-2//
a'slesardhad asid yada nivrttih kilonakiranasya/
yuktam ayanam tada'sit, sampratam ayanam
Punarvasutah//PSIII.21//
"Certainly at one time the turning of the Sun towards the south was from the middle of the [A'slesa] segment, and the turning north was from the beginning of the [Dhanistha] segment, because this is mentioned in ancient works.
"But now the turnings are from the beginning of the [Karkataka] and Makara rasi] segments, respectively. If this does not happen (in future, on account of precession), the amount of deviation is to be determined by observation." (Br. Sam. III.1-2).
"When the Sun turned away south from the middle of [Aslesa], it was proper for that time. But now the turning away is from Punarvasu." (PS III.21).
Now in the 'sloka from the PS, "from the middle of [A'slesa]" corresponds to the same phrase in the quotation from the Br.Sa, III.1; and "from Punarvasu" corresponds to " the beginning of Karkataka" in
Br.Sam.III.2 above, the same phenomenon of precession being described in both. So "from Punarvasu" must be taken to mean a point three quarters from the beginning of the segment, for that is the point corresponding to the beginning of Karkataka. But VT who wants the end of [Punarvasu] to be the turning point, wants us to shut our eyes to the specific reference to the "somewhere" in Karkataka, giving the reason that the word is found in a mere [Samhita] and not in a [Karana] like the PS. It seems he has not taken note of the many passages in the PS itself that specifies the 'beginning' of Karkataka as the point. For instance, in the 'sloka next but one, i.e., PS III.23, we find "[mesa-tuladau visuvad]", "at teh beginning of Mesa and Tula are the Equinoxes". One 'sloka later we have again:
[udagayanam makaradau rtavah 'si'siradaya's ca
suryava'sat/
dvibhavanakalasamanam, daksinam ayanam ca
karkatakat //PS III.25//
In XIII.10, we have, "At the end of [Mithuna] the Sun revolves at an altitude of 24o at teh N. pole".
Also VT says taht [Puunarvasutah] can mean only from the "end of Punarvasu". This interpretation is wrong. It only means "from Punarvasu", and can mean any point in it. [Gramatah pattanam pratisthate] does not only mean 'he starts from the border of the village'. It can mean any point in the village.
Further, the context in which [aslesardhat] etc, is found,itself specifies a point 1 3/4 segments from the middle of [A'slesa] and this point is three quarters of Punarvasu. In the immediately preceding 'sloka, VM states that [Vyatipata-punyakala] occurs when Sun plus Moon equals 17 asterismal spaces, i.e., 17X13o 20', or 226o 40', as opposed to out expectation taht it should occur at teh middle of the 14th (i.e.,at 180o) according to teh definition given in the 'Sastras. There is a difference of 46o 40' or 3 1/2 spaces that has to be explained. As yoga is obtained from the combined longitudes of the Sun and the Moon, a change of 1 3/4 spaces that has to be explained. As yoga is obtained of each, caused by the shifting of the origin of refernce will expalin the difference of the 3 1/2 spaces. This shifting of the origin, by the precession of the equinoxes, is mentioned in
[a'slesardhat] etc., and this must be 1 3/4 segments as required, and the point at 3/4 Punarvasu follows, for it is this point that is 1 3/4 segments behind the middle of [A'slesa].
Still another proof can be adduced to show that 3/4 [Punarvasu] is to be considered as the point in question. If it is the end of Punarvasu, the Vernal Equinox will be, as we have already stated, at +3o 20' from the zero point from which the longitudes of the Sun, the Moon etc., to compute the daylight, the shadow and other things, in short, for all work usually given in the [Tripra'snadhikara] of a [siddhanta], we must be instructed to deduct 3o 20' from the longitudes got by computation, and use this for the calculation, as the longitudes from the Vernal Equinox are to be used here. In a much as such an instruction has not been given anywhere in the text, we must take it that the zero point and the Vernal Equinox were coincident, which mean s that the Summer Solstice was at 3/4 Punarvasu. Now in (ii), VT has budgetted for an cut of 3o 20', 15, But the above fact will result in a cut of 3o 20', and VM will be lifted 240 years from the intended 123 B.C. towards the true place, 505 A.D.
Now we may pass on to consider (ii), viz., VT's statement that in April 1909 A.D. there is an [Ayanam'sa] of 28o 15', taking it to be zero at VM's time, when according to VT the VErnal Equinox was +3o 20' from the zero point, i.e.there is a total [ayancalana] of 28o 15', from VM'stime to 1909 A.D. VT makes up the 28o 15' necessary for him, by piecing together four different quantities: 9a) the distance between the Vernal Equinox and the zero point, both referring to VM's time, equal to 3o 20'; (b) the late L.D.Swamikannu Pillai's (LDS) calculation of the [Ayanan'sa] in 1909 to be 22o 25' which is the equivalent in degrees of the time from the Sun at the Vernal Equinox of 1909 to its entering the Sign Mesa in the same year according to [Surya Siddhanta]; (c) what VT calls a [Bija] (i.e. correction) of 2.18 days, equivalent to 2o9'; and (d)an error or observation equal to 16'. Of these four quantities, we have already seen that VT cannot have (a), by the fact that the summer Solstice was at 3/4 Punarvasu and not at the end of Punarvasu in VM's time. So 3o 20' is cut off from the 28o 15'. We shall not discuss (d), for we except to point out below what mischief even this can do. That leaves us (b) and (c) to deal with.
We shall take (b) first. VT uses the [Ayanam'sa] 22o 25' calculated by
LDS in a manner not intended by him. To understand how it is so, it is necessary to make clear the principle involved in the calculation. LDS found from the [Nautical Almanac] that at 0.2143-day on the 21st March 1909, the True Sun was the Vernal Equinox. He found that according to the [Surya Siddhanta] (Modern, not the Saura of PS), the True Sun reached the First Point of Mesa at 0.9492 day on 12th April 1909. From the difference between the two moments, equal to 22.7349 days, using the rate of motion of the sun at that internval, he calculated the [Ayanam'sa] to be 22o 25'. Suppose LDS had used the time of the True Sun at Mesa (Mesa Sankramana as it is called) fo some other Almanac like the Drk Almanac or VVakya Almanac, he would have got different [Ayanam'sas], for it is a well-known fact that Almanacs vary in their times of [Sankramana]. Which [ayanam'sa] are we to adopt? which is the 'correct', [Ayanam'sa]? By 'correct' [Ayanam'sa] is meant the total precession in degrees, fo the Vernal Equinox, from a specific point on the Ecliptic, which we call the zero point, during the interval 1909 and the time when we take the Vernal Equinox to coincide with thezero point, in out case the time of VM. According to this criterion none of the present-day Almanacs gives the 'correct' [Ayanam'sa]. The following is the reason: If the length of the year adopted by an almanac is the correct sidereal year, viz., 365 days 15 [nadis], 22.9 [vindas], so that at the end of every year the Sun returns to the specified zero point, then this way of finding the [Ayanam'sa] will yield the 'correct' [Ayanam'sa]. But the old system Indian Almanacs use, instead of the above correct Sidereal year, the Sidereal year of the [Aryabhatiya] or of the new [Surya Siddhanta] (365-15-31-31), adopted generally by LDS in his Ephemeris) and the like, which though called Sidereal, are very nearly Anomalistic, being about 8-5 or 8-6 [vinadis] longer than the correct Sidereal year. As a result, the First point of Mesa moves forward leaving the zero point behind at the rate of 8.5"per annum. So if we adopt LDS's methods of using the time of the True Sun at teh First Point of Mesa according to a particualr Almanac to get the [Ayanam'sa], we must deduct from the gross [Ayansm'sa] got, the accumulated interval between the zerp point and the First point of Mesa of that Almanac, to get the correct [Ayanam'sa]. (This accumulated interval may be called the 'Procession' of the First Point of Mesa for that Almanac). It is this correct [Ayanam'sa] that should be divided by the correct rate fo
precession of 50" 2585 etc. to get the year when the Vernal Equinox was at the zero point. If, on the other hand, we use the gross rate of precession (which is the correct rate of precession 'plus' about 8 5"), to get the year, for the gross [Ayanam'sa] increases not by the correct rate of precession but by the gross rate of precession, viz. 50" 2585 etc. etc. increased by about 8.5". This is the reason why most Indian systems give nearly 1'as the rate of precession. The reader will find out statement corroborated by sections 64 and 277 of LDS's Indian Chronology (Madras, 1911).
This is the reason why LDS divided his gross [Ayanam'sa] by 58" 78 and got 536 A.D. for VM as a first approximation. The gorss rate of precession 58"78 is got from the rate of Procession (viz.8"52) plus the rate of correct precession 50"26, for it is at this combined rate of 58" 78 that the Vernal Equinox recedes with reference to the First Point of Mesa, per annum. From this we see that it is wrong to use for this purpose the actual rate of precession given, even by the system, if any, as for eg. 54" annum in the case of the new [Surya Siddhanta] or 1' per annum in the case of certain other [Siddhantas], and so on; for these [Siddhantas] have found the rates or precession by actual observation of the Sun at the Vernal Equinox, and there is likely to be an error in the observation. According to the error the rates may vary. The nearer their rates are to 58".78, the better are their observation.
It is incumbent on our part, in the present context, to answer certain remarks made by VT on the above procedure of LDS. VT remarks: "There are the following drawbacks in the whole argument (of LDS):
"(a) It was considered that Dakshinayana began when the Sun reached the beginning of Karkataka instead of the end of Punarvasu.
"(b) The fact that the modern tropical year goes on decreasing at the rate of 0.53 seconds per century was not taken into consideration.
"(c) At least at teh time of Varahamihira, the Indian Siderial year-so designated at present-was really a tropical year and the value for the presession of the equinoxes must be taken as 50".2585 -nX.000225" and not as 54".7505 as assumed by Swamikannu Pillai."
Of these (a) has already been answered. AS for (b), int he 14 centuries considered by LDS, the time neglected by him is about 56 seconds, equivalent in 2" of the Sun's motion. Is this not negligible in the context?
As for (c), this is against the internal evidence of the PS. Excepting [Vasistha] and the Romaka, all the other [Siddhantas] in it give Sidereal years. The Pauli'sa gives 365 days, 15 [nadikas], and 30 [vinadikas], the Saura, 365-15-31-30, and the [Paitamaha 366 days. By what stretch of imagination can these be called Tropical years, these years that are so far greater than the correct Sidereal year that they border on the Anomalistic? As for LDS not taking 50".2585 for division, we have answered it by saying that this would be proper only if the correct Sidereal year, 365-15-22.9. had been used throughout the period of which we are considering the [Ayanam'sa]. Secondly, where has LDS assumed a rate of precession of 54".7505, and in which context?
It should not be thought that because the modern Drk Almanacs use the correct Sidereal year equal to 365-15-22.9, the time of the True Sun at their First point of Mesa will give the correct [ayanam'sa]. These almanacs were started recently and they arbitrarily fixed for themselves such [ayanam'sas] as would keep their [sankramanas] within reasonable distance from those of the old almanacs. The very fact that the [sankramanas] vary only within a matter of [nadis], shows this, for considering the difference between the correct Sidereal year and the so-called Sidereal years of our [siddhantas], even within a period of 420 years there will be a difference of one day, and for the period we are considering, viz. 1400 years or more, there should be a difference of more than three days, the Drk [Sankramanas] occurring earlier. To avoid the hue and cry that would be rasied if the [Sankramanas] in their almanacs are foundto occur thus, more than three days earlier, the Drk Almanac makers fixed for themselves [aynam'sas] that would keep their [sankramanas] near enoguh to those of the old system almanacs. The [Caitra or the Dhanistha Paksa] has come in handy for them to fix their [ayanam'sa] in this manner, but these [Paksa] are contradicory to all schools of traditional astronomy which have adopted the [Raivata-paksa] alone.
To continue the main argument. As, in the manner already stated, the number of years got to be deducted from 1909 to find the zero point should be the same, whether we divide the gross [ayanam'sa] by the gross rate of precession, or the correct[aynam'sa] by the correct rate of precession, and as the rates in the ration 7:6 approximately, the gross
[ayanam'sa] found by LDS (by using the time of [sankiramana] of the new [Surya Siddhanta] should be reduced by one seventh of itself to get the equivalent correct [ayanam'sa], which we find to be 19o 12'. So VT can have only 19o 12' and not 22o 23' by (b).
Now, we pass on to (c). (This is VT's special.) What VT says amounts to this : Kali began at midnight0.579 days after sunrise on 15th February as the Epoch of [Kaliyuga]. So there is a difference of 2.18 (?2.17) days which must be a [bija] correction. So we must add 2.18 days to the time of the True Sun reaching the First Point of Mesa in (b), viz. 0.9492 on 12th April. Thus the interval in days is increased by 2.18 days; which means 2o 9' more in [ayanm'sa], which will make up the 28o 15' required.
Now, what VT thinks to be a [bija] is really the interval between the times of the True and the Mean Suns reaching the First Point of Mesa. According to Indian astronomy the Sun's Equation of the Centre is about 2o9' at the time of Mesa [Sankiramana]. So the True Sun is in advance of the Mean Sun by 2o 9' and reaches the First Point of Mesa earlier by about 2.18 days. As the Apogee of the Sun has an extremely slow motion according to Hindu astronomy, the 2 18 days practically continue throguh the ages to be the same. In (b), LDS took for calculation the interval between the True Sun at the VErnal Equinox and the True Sun at the First Point of Mesa which is quite proper. If he had taken the interval between the times of the Mean Sun at Vernal Equinox and the True Sun at the First Point, then indeed we shall be justified in adding 2.18 days; for then the interval first got would have been less by 2.18 days, on account of the Mean Sun reaching the Veranl Equinox later by 2.18 days than the True Sun. If we add 2.18 days, as we ought to now, we get the same interval of 22.735 days. Thus VT cannot have (c).
The error of observation, (d), is possible and may be allowed if required; but it must be remembered that it is arbitrary, indefinite and may be plus or minus. VT has taken (d) as error or observation, not from [apriori] considerations, but [aposteriori], because this alone will give him, when added to the other quantities and divided by 50".2585 etc., 2031 years to be deducted from 1909 and get 123 B.C. So the reader is warned against getting predisposed in facour of 123 B.C.,simply because 1909
A.D. [minus] 2031 is exactly equal to 123 B.C., for this particular amount of error of observation has been arbitrarily presumed to get this very result.
In conclusion, we find that in VT's [ayanam'sa] of 28o 15'. (a) is cut off,(c) is cut off, (d) may be ignored, and (b) is reduced to about 19o 12'. If we divide this by the correct rate of precession, 50".2585 etc., we get c. 534 A.D. as VM's time. It may be noted how far away this is from 123B.C., and how near it is to 505 A.D. (epoch).
The [ayanam'sa] argument of Prof. Rai (Jpuhs I.124-27) is the same as VT's (a) and (b), with the difference that he takes (b) for 1931 instrtead of 1909. This amounts to 26o 3' 40" according to him, and committing the same mistake as VT of dividing this gross [ayanam'sa] by the actual rate of precession, he says VM lived 1866 years before 1931, i.e., in 65 A.D. Since this does not take him to the desired 123 B.C. Prof. RAi thinks that this descrepancy may be overcome by assuming an appropriate error or observation, which in this case has to be as large as 3 degrees or so!
With showing that 427 'Saka of VM is 505 A.D. and that the [ayanam'sa] argument is fallacious, the main object of this paper is over. It is unnecessary to discuss the 'slokas from [jyotirvidabharana] quoted by these scholars enumerating the nine gems of [Vikramaditya's] court (dhanvantari-ksapanaka etc.) and the year given therein; for in the light of the foregoing discussion these must be taken as part of a romance, or an attempt at imposture by the author of the work. Nobody will take seriously this 'sloka jumbling men of different ages together, as no one will take seriously the other romance, the [Bhoja Prabahdha], for matters of history.
The Date of Bhattotpala
Both Rai and VT seek additional evidence for VM's earlier date by making his commnetator Bhattotpala himslef earlier than 505 A.D. We shall examine this now. Bhattotpala says at the end of his commentary on VM's Brhajjataka that he finished writing it in 'Saka 888 (elapsed) on Caitra 'Sukla Pancami, which was a Thursday:
[caitramasasya pancamyam sitayam guruvasare/
vasvastastamite 'sake krteyam vivrtir maya//
Here VT says that "the weekday does not come out correctly if we take either the ['Salivahana 'Saka] or the Vikrama 'Saka. So the 'Saka mentioned by...Bhattotpala refers only to the 'Saka with 550 B.C. as
epoch. This means that if Bhattotpala's 'Saka is taken as given in the 'Saka of 550 B.C., the weekday agrees; and so the date referred to is 888 years after 550 B.C., i.e., 339 A.D., (but in his 'Andhra Saka' he gives 340 A.D., cf. fn. 11 above) and so VM must be earlier still. But we have made the calculations, and we find that it is 339 A.D. that does not give the agreement ; in that year the Caitra Pancami falls on Friday, ending at about 35 [nadis]. In his Popular [Astronmy}, pp. 136-37, VT has chaged the date of Bhattotpala to 338 A.D., in accordance with his changing the 'Saka Epcoh to 551 B.C. Strangely enough, here too VT asserts that he finds agreement with the weekday, i.e. three days off, on this date. On the other hand there is perfect agreement with 'Salivahana 'Saka 888 (corresponding to 966 A.D.) if Caitra is in the Purnaimanta reckoning which was prevalent in Bhattotpala's time and place. If 'Saka 888 is elapsed year, [Caitra'suddha-pancami] falls on Thursay, at 25 [nadis], Februaru 28, 966 A.D. So we get the time of Bhattotpala's finsihing the work correctly as we expressed. Because we took the current 'Saka instead of the elapsed (elapsed is the more usual practice of the Hindus), we had recourse [Purnimanta] reckoning, where too it is the previous [Phalguna] that agrees.
And there is also positive evidence to show that Bhattotpala has meant only the ['Salivahana 'Saka]. He has commneted on the [Khandakhadyaka] of Brahmagupta, who says that it is a re-presentation of the (Ardharatrika) system of [Aryabhata. This means that Brahmagupta is later than [Aryabhata] (3600 Kali, corresponding to 499 A.D.) and that Bhattotpala must be alter stll. It is not possible to drag down, as VT and others do, both [Aryabhata] and [Brahmagupta] together into the earlier centuries, for the following reasonds: The date of [Aryabhata] is definitely 3600 Kali, as already shown. Brahmagupta gives 587 'Sakakalaas the wpoch of his [Khandakhadyaka (I.3). Brahmagupta elsewhere states that 3179 is to be added to the 'Saka year to get the corresponding Kali year (Cf. Brahmasphutasiddhanta, I.26). [Amaraja] commenting on the above verse of [Khandakhadyaka] (I.3) gives the Kali year corresponding to the epoch of the work ('Saka 587) to be 3766 by adding 3179 to 587; and also calculates and verifies the Ksepas and the weekday do the epoch taking the Kali year 3766, which is A.D. 665, which therefore must be the time of Brahmagupta. Further, Brahmagupta is linked to [Bhaskara]Ii (who VT at
least admits wrote his Siddhanta-'siromani in 1150 A.D.) by an observed [ayanam'sa] of about 11o. Bhaskara Ii also says that in Brahmagupta's time the [ayanam'sa] was so little that it was "unobservable even to that expert astronomer". So Brahmagupta cannot be dragged too far away from [Bhaskara], and this condition will be fulfilled only if his epoch is int he ['Salivahana 'Saka]. (TSN says in this connection that Brahmagupta, whom Bhaskara II eulogises as his learned ancient teacher, could not detect an observational error of 5'!!) And so his commentator, Utpala's date, 'Saka 888, has also to be in the 'Salivahana 'Saka.
Prof. Rai advances another argument, which is his own and not given by anybody else. It is this : [Brhat Samhita], VIII. 20-21, gives a rule from which, by using the ['Saka] year, the corresponding [Jovian] year in the 60 year cycle [Prabhava] etc., can be got. He works it out for 1932 using the 'Saka starting from 550 B.C., and gets 52 years gone in the [Prabhava]series. Using the years gone in the ['Salivahana 'Saka] of 78 A.D., he gets the 18th year in the series, viz. [Tarana]. He finds this [Tarana] given in North Indian almanacs. But he says this proves nothing beyond showing that the North Indian almanac-makers have adopted the 'Salivahana 'Saka for this rule. But the point at issue is which is the correct 'Saka to take. This can be found by working out the year from the Kali years gone till 1932, and seeing which of the two (52 or 18) it agrees with. Prof. Rai works out the Jovian years gone from the beginning of Kali, using the elements of the [Surya Siddhanta], and dividing the result by 60 gets the remainder 52. Lo! this is the same as the remainder got by using the 'Saka of 550 B.C. So, that is the 'Saka intended by Vm in his [Brhat Samhita], he says. The argument seems to be perfect.
But this is the fallacy in it: If the Jovian year is to be worked out a [priori] using the [Kali] years gone, the years should be counted from [Vijaya] and not from [Prabhava]. This condition is specified in the very [Surya Siddhanta] whose elements Prof.Rai uses for computation, and this has been missed by him. Now counting 52 from Vijaya, we get only the 18th year of the [Prabhava] series, viz. [Tarana], and this agrees with 'Saka of 78 A.D. and not the 'Saka of 550 B.C. Thus Prof. Rai's argument fails. In the result, it is only a proof for taking VM's 'Sakakala to be the 'Salivahana 'Saka, and discarding the 'Saka of 550 B.C.
Prof. Rai seeks further support to his theory by stating (ib., p.71) that, "Albiruni writing in 1030 A.D. not only talks of Bhaskaracharya, but also mentions his book 'Karana Kutuhala'", that the date oc composition of Karanakutuhala given in the work itself, viz. 'Saka 1105, if taken in the 'Salivahana 'Saka would be 1183 A.D., i.e. 150 years after Albiruni, which is patently impossible, that "Weber in his book on Sanskrit Literature (p.262) notices this anomaly, but is unable to offer any expalantion" (Weber in his Book on Sanskrit Literature, English Translation, London, 1914), and that "if we take this 'Saka commencing from 550 B.C., the riddle is solved", for this would take [Bhaskara] to the 6th cent. A.D., long prior to Albiruni.
The answer to Prof. Rai is given by [Bhaskara] himself who indicates thathe uses only the 'Salivahana 'Saka, for he says that 3179 is to be added to the 'Saka year to get the Kali years gone (Cf. Siddh. 'Siromani, Ganita, Madhyama, [Kalamana,28). Moreover Albiruni's words in the context do not warrant the name [Bhaskara] at all, nor does he mention anywhere a work [Karana-'Kutuhala]' (the work named being a Karana-'Sara). It has also to be added that Prof. Rai is not speaking the facts when he says that Weber offers on the very page that Rai refers to (page 262) several explanations: Weber says that "we have scarcely any alternative save to separate Albiruni's 'Bashkar' son of 'Mahdeb', and the author of "Karanasara' from the [Bhaskara], son of [Mahadeva], and author of [Karanakutuhala]". (Note that none of the three names, neither that of the author, nor of his father, which is really Mahe'svara and which Weber himself draws attention to in a footnote, nor of the work, tallies). Weber again suggests that his translation of the Arabic words of Albiruni might be wrong, for "Alhiruni usually represents the Indian bh by b-h, and for the most part faithfully preserves the length of the vowels, neither of these is here done in the case of Bashkar, where, moreover, the s is changed into sh", and adds in a footnote that in the passage under discussion "there lurks not a [Bhaskara] at all, but perhaps, Pushkara". Even if the passage refers to a [Bhaskara], Weber suggests that "we may have to think of that elder [Bhaskara], 'who was at the head of the commentatots of [Aryabhata, and is repreatedly cited by [Prthudakasvamin], who was himself anterior to the author of the 'Siromani". It is in the face of these facts that Prof. Rai
coolly asserts that Weber "is unable to offer any explanation!" (Here Rai only follows T.S.N's remarks.)
We may add here that the epoch of [Karanasara] which is mistaken for [Karanakutuhala], is given by Albiruni as 'Saka 821 (A.D. 899) (Alberuni's India, Sachau, I.392), and obviously Prof. Rai's [Bhaskara] of the 6th cent. cannot write a work 300 years later! So Prof. Rai's argument only goes against his own theory.
Thus nothing can shake the evidence showing that the 'Saka mentioned by VM is the 'Salivahana 'Saka and that the date 'Saka 427 given by him in his PS is 505 A.D. Incidentally it has also been shown that the 'Saka era used by Brahmagupta, Bhattotpala and [Bhaskara] II is the 'Salivahana 'Saka of 78 A.D.
We propose to show in a subsequent article the untenability of certain other claims of these scholars referred to in the Introduction and that everywhere when the word 'Saka occurs as the name of an era, it is only the 'Salivahana 'Saka that is meant, and therefore or otherwise there is no case for postulating a Cyrus or Andhra Era of 550 B.C.
THE UNTENABLILITY OF
THE POSTULATED 'SAKA OF 550 B.C.*
1. Introduction
It has been shown in the preceding study that the 'Saka ERa used or alluded to by astronomers like [Varahamihira (VM), Brahmagupta, Bhattotpala, 'Sripati, Bhaskaras I and II, etc. is the era starting from 78 A.D., later known as the 'Salivahana 'Saka, and not the era of 550 B.C. postulated by the late T.S. Narayana Sastri (TSN) or V. Thiruvenkatacharya (VT) and called by them the Cyrus Era or the Andhra ERa, respectively. Incidentally we have shown to be untenable their statements that [Aryabhata] belonged near to 2742 B.C., VM to 123 B.C., Brahmagupta to 36 A.D., Bhattotpala to 339 A.D. and Bhaskara II to 522 A.D., and thereby we have proved that VM belongs to 505 A.D. and Bhattotpala to 966 A.D. and indicated that the real date of [Aryabhata] is 499 A.D. and of Brahmagupta 654 A.D.
In the same way it can be shown that wherever other astronomers or writers like Kalhana and Albiruni mention a 'Saka Era, it is this 'Saka of 78
A.D. they mean. The tradition of alamanac-makers also supports this, for they all give in their alamanacs only this 'Saka Era and not the alleged other one. In inscriptions and documents also, in short, in every case where a date in 'Saka Era is given, it is this 'Saka alone, though this is disputed by TSN and (till recently) by Sri Kota venkatachelam (KV) in the case of the Aihole Inscription (to which we shall revert later).
Ii. VM's Brhat-Samhita XIII. 3 considered
We shall not take up for discussion [Brhat-Samhita] of VM (Br.Sam.) XIII. 3 referred to by us in the previous paper, which TSN and others consider as their stronghold, and which we left over for detailed consideration later:
[asan magha su munayah 'sasati prthvim yudhisthire
nrpatau/
sad-dvika-panca -dvi-yutah 'Sakakalas tasya
rajna's ca//
This stanza occurs in the context of the 'Saptarsi-cara or the alleged 'Motion of the Seven Sages', (i.e., the group of stars Ursa Major or the Great Bear), among the twenty-seven asterimss, given for use in astrological prediction. To gind the position of the group at any time, three things are necessary: (i) its postion at a given time; (ii) the time elapsed from the given time to the time for which the postion is required,and (iii) its rate of motion. The above stanza gives (i) and (ii),viz., that at the time fo [Yudhisthira's] rule the Sages were at teh asterismal segment [Magha], and the time elapsed from this time to any year in the 'Saka Era is the number of the year in the 'Saka Era plus 2526. (Requirement iii is given in the next stanza, XIII.4, as one asterismal segment for 100 years).
Now TSN and KV argue thus: (a) This stanza is a quotation from Vrddha Garga (VG), and so VG knows a 'Saka ERa which he mentions here. It is accepted by all that VG lived long prior to 78 A.D., the starting point of the 'Salivahana 'Saka. So this 'Saka must be an earlier 'Saka, viz., that of 550 B.C. postulated by them. (b) The first half of this stanza says the Sages were in [Magha] during [Yudhisthira's] time. The [Puranas] and VG etc. say that at the junction of [Dvapara] and Kali yugas, the Sages were at Magha and Yudhisthira was ruling. 25 years after the advent of Kali, the Sages moved to the next asterism from [Magha] and in that year
Yudhisthira left this world for heaven. The second half of the stanza states that the 'Sakakala mentioned therein started 2526 years after [Yudhisthirakala]. If we take [Yudhisthirakala] to have started from the time he went he heaven, i.e. after 25 Kali equivalent to 3076 B.C., this 'Saka must have started 2526 years after this, i.e. from 550 B.C., and is evidently quite different from the 'Saka starting from 78 A.D.
It is in the light of this conclusion, and in support of it, that TSN etc. say (as we have discussed already in the previous paper), that the 'Sakakala mentioned by VM in pther places in his works, and also by other astronomers like [Brahmagupta], is this 'Saka of 550 B.C. But we have proved conclusively in the previous study that in those places it is the 'Saka of 78 A.D. that is referred to. Therefore the conclusion here arrived at by TSN etc. must stand on it sown legs. We sahll proceed to examine this now. Even at teh outset we can say that it is extremely unlikely that VM means here alone a 'Saka different from what he means by the same word elsewhere in his works; and therefore he must mean the 'Saka of 78 A.D. here also. All the same we shall examine their arguments.
(a) The alleged quotation of Vrddha Garga
The reasoning (a) is based on the assumption that the stanza is a quotation from VG, which it is not. The actual words of VG are quotod by the commentator Bhattotpala in his commentary on thsi stanza: cf. [tatha ca Vrddha-Gargah]: "Kali-Dvaparayoh sandhau sthitas te pitrdaivatam" (At the junction of Kali and Dvapara, they -the sages-were at Magha). It is to be noted that thus would be redundant if the staza in question also were VG's, both giving the same idea, viz. the situation of the stages. It may also be noted that this is in a different metre. What VM means by his statement in the introductory stanza, [Kathayisye Vrddha-Garga-matat (Br.Sam.XIII.2) is only that he is giving the astrological predictions due to the motion of the Sages as based on the work of VG, as indicated by the word [matat]('opinion') used here. Also in all the other [caras] given in the other cahpters of Br.Sam, like [Adityacara, Candracara, Rahucara] etc., what VM means by [cara] is the prediction based upon the motion and not the actual motion, and so must it be here also, (the actual motions being given in a ganita work like the Pancasiddhantika). If in the case of the Sages the motion also is given, it is because it is simple, has not been
given elsewhere, and is necessary for the main purpose, viz., the prediction that Vm says he gives according to VG. So this stanza which serves to find the position of the Sages need not necessarily be, and as we have shown, is not, VG's. This being the case, it cannot be argued that Garga who came long prior to 78 A.D. knows a 'Sakakala and therefore this 'Sakakala must be the earlier postulated one of 550 B.C.
(b) The Time of Yudhisthira
We now pass on to consider (b), the second and more important reasoning of TSN etc., viz., that VM in this verse refers to Yudhisthira who lived at the beginning of Kali and rose to heaven 25 years after Kali set in (i.e. in 3076 B.C.) and so the 'Saka Era beginning 2526 years after that must be the postualted 'Saka of 550 B.C. But we answer, there is nothing in this verse to show that in VM's opinion Yudhisthira lived at the beginning of Kali. On the other hand, it can be shown that VM might have meant a time about 650 years after Kali, or even that he did mean this later period for the time of [Yudhisthira], and therfore the 'Saka Era following 2526 years after, cannot be the postualted 'Saka of 550 B.C., but can only be the well-known 'Saka of 78 A.D. It is a fact well known to scholars (inclusive of TSN etc.) that the junction of Dvapara and Kali (3102 B.C.) is not the only period with which Yudhisthira is associated. This is according to one school; but there is at least one other school (e.g. that of the Jain Buddhist writers) who take it that Yudhisthira lived about 500 years later. They use a [Yudhisthira Era] which began in 468 Kali (corresponding to 2634 B.C.). EVen of the first school mentioned not all associate the same event of Yudhisthira's life with the beginning of Kali, 3102 B.C. There are four sub-schools here (Fleet says three, but mentions all four, JRAS (1911)676-78, 'The Kaliyuga Era of B.C. 3102'). One sub-school believes that the first coronation of Yudhisthira at Indraprastha was the beginning of Kali and the commencement of the [Yudhisthira Era]. Another makes the [Bharata] war and the beginning of Kali synchronous. A third says that Kali began at the death of Krsna and his ascent to heaven. The fourth sub-school says that Yudhisthira's adbication and starting on the [Mahaprasthana] was at the beginning of Kali. The reason why there are so many views must be explained by the fact that the traditional idea of the ages like [Krta], [Treta], [Dvapara] and [Kali] with their specific
characteristics, was earlier that the integration of the beginning of the traditional Kali with that of the astronomical Kali answering to 3102 B.C., which was computed later by astronomers like [Aryabhata] so as to form a convenient point of reference for the Mean Planets. Thus the Kali Era, said to begin with 3102 B.C., is an extrapolated era, and in examining any date mentioned in this Kali Era, this fact should be borne in mind.
Now, in this multiplicity of schools on this point, which is a fact accepted by all, resulting from the integration of the traditional Kali with the astronomical Kali, there is the possibility of VM's statement representing one other school or at least a variant of the Jain school, differing as it does, from it only by about two centuries. Kalhana, the Kashmirian chronicler of the 12th cent. A.D., is one of those that subscribe to thsi school; for not only does he quote in his [Rajatarangini] this verse of VM. but also expresses his own concurrence with it in so many words:
[Bharatam Dvaparante bhud vartayeti vimohitah/
Kecid evam mrsa tesam kalasankhyam pracakrire//
I.49//
* * * * * *
['satesu satsu sardhesu tryadhikesu ca bhutale
Kaler gatesu varsanam abhuvan Kuru-Pandavah//
I. 51//
* * * * * *
sat-dvika-panca-dvi-yutah 'Sakakalas tasy rajana's ca//
I.56b//
"Some people have been misled by the statement that the Bharata (War) was at the end of [Dvapara], and have given a wrong chronology to the kings (the Pandavas, Gonanda etc.)... The Kurus and the Pandavas came when 653 years had passed in Kali...... The time in the 'Saka ERa plus 2526 is the time of his rule, i.e. the time in the epoch beginning from his (Yudhisthira's) rule."
It may noted that 653 plus 2526 (the numbers here given) equal 3179, the well-known converter of 'Saka into Kali and [vice versa]. Not only is Kalhana a believer in this school, but he is also certain that VM belongs to this school, as seen by his statement 'Samhitakaraih' (Rajatarangini,I.55) and his quotation of VM following immediately (I.56). Cunningham also
thinks the same as seen from his statement, "As VM places the GReat War 653 years after the beginning of the Kali AGE....." (op.cit.p.11). Again, Prof. P.C. Sengupta, who in his Ancient Indian Chronology (Univ. of Calcutta, 1947) in seeking to determine the date of the Bharata War astronomically (see chs.I-III) favours this school, and comes to the conclusion that: "The date of the Bharata Battle is thus astronomically established as the year 2449 B.C. (Kali 653), which is supported by the VRiddha Garga tradition recorded by Varaha Mihira., (see p. 19). Now it must be noted that the mere possibility of following this school is sufficient for our purpose, as we have stated above,
Nor, can the objection be raised that VG and the [Puranas] associate the Sages with Magha at the beginning of Kali, and that in this verse too, as the Sages are declared to be at [Magha] in [Yudhisthira's] reign, the time here should be taken as the beginning of Kali, and so the time given for [Yudhisthira's] rule must be the beginning of Kali, and not 653 Kali. For, the beginning of Kali is not associated with [Maghra] alone. The [Matsya Purana] says (ch.271, st.41) that according to the 'Srutarsis the Sages were at [Krittika] at the beginning of Kali, and TSN and KV are aware of it (TSN quotes it and explains it, see The Age of Sankara, Madras, 1916 ff., App.,pp.166-67; so also KV, plot in Indian Chronology, 34-36). They themselves say that in VM's opinion also the sages were at [Krittika] at the beginning of Kali (TSN. ib., p.171; KV, ib. p. 36, and 'Indian Eras', JAHRS XX.77). According to [Aryabhata II and [Para'sara] too (for details see below), the Sages were at [Krttika] at the beginning of Kali. They were at 'Sravana according to 'Sakalya and Muni'svara, and at Rohini according to Lalla (for details, see below). So the objection rasied above does not stand. Now, according to [Aryabhata II] and [Para'sara], who give [Krttika], it is easily seen that the Sages will be in [Magha] in the 7th cent. Kali, for [Magha] is the seventh asterism from [Krttika] and the motion is about one century perasterism. Thus, there can be no objection to the Sages being in [Magha] in the 7th cent. Kali. It is only if the motion of the Sages is taken to be retrograde (as TSN and certain others think) according to [Aryabhata II], [Para'sara] and VM, but would be far away from it. But it is not retrograde according to [Aryabhata II], [Para'sara] and VM, as also according to other astronomers who give rules for the motion, which we
shall show.
III. (a) 'Motion of the Sages"-Direct, not Retrograde
This requires a knowledge of the motion of the Seven Sages which we shall give in some detail because there is a lot of misconception among scholars (inclusing TSN, KV and VT) about this, which in turn vitiates the results of their researches. It was believed by the authors of the ancient [Jyotisa Samhita], like the planets, the rate of motion being given as 100, or nearly 100, years per asterism (13o 20'). It may be said, even at the outset, that there is no such motion as claimed to exist by the authors of these [Samhitas] and followed up the [Puranas] and some of the later astronomers; that the Sages are always to be associated only with the [Phalgunis], [Hasta] and [Citra] asterisms (see fn.10); and that the theory of their motion is wrong, howsoever it might have originated. That is why many standard astronomers and astronomical works like [Aryabhata] I, Brahmagupta, [Sripati], Bhaskaras I and II, the [Suryasiddhanta], etc., do not deal with the subject at all as being outside the pale of real astronomy. That is also why [Kamalakara] is constrained to say in his [Siddhanta Tattvaviveka](Banaras, 1880-85), [Bhagrahayutyadhikara]:
['Sakalyasamjna-munina kathitas sabanah
saptarsitarakabhava dhruvaka's cala's ca/25a/
* * * * * *
[Yair golatattvam vivrtam hi tai's ca
suryadibhir naiva vi'sesa esah/
[Proktas sva'sastre 'sti gatir muninam
ato na yukta divi golaritya]//30//
* * * * * *
[adyapi kair api narair gatir aryavaryaih
drsta na yatra kathita kila 'Samhitasu]/32a/
* * * * * *
[Prayo 'tha te ca munayah kila devatam'sa
drggocara nahi nrnam iha satphalaptyai]//36a//
"Sage 'Sakalya has given the motion of the Sages with their poitions in his time ...[Surya] and others who explain the nature of the celestial sphere in their works do not give it and therefore the theory cannot be
sustanied astronomically....Even today this motion mentioned in the [Samhitas] is not observed by knowing astronomers... Therefore the seven real Sages who are (only) the Presiding deities (of these stars) are to be considered to be moving, unobserved by men, for the prediction of the fruits thereof."
But the motion has been accepted as a fact by the common people and the authors of the [Puranas], and an era called [Laukika Era] (by the people belonging to the Kashmir region) and the Saptarsi ERa (by the Puranas), has been founded upon this theory. As already mentioned, there are also astronomers like VM, [Aryabhata II] (cf. his Aryasiddhanata or Mahasiddhanta, Madhyamadhyaya, Ii), [Para'sara] (cf. Aryasiddhanta, Para'saramatadhyaya,9), Lalla (Quoted by Muni'svara in his commentary on the Siddhanta 'Siromani), 'Sakalya (quoted by Munisvara, ib., and by Kamalakara in his Siddhanta Tattvaviveka, Bhagrahayutyadhikara 25 and under), [Vate'svara], and [Muni'svara] (see his Siddhanta Sarvabhauma), who have accepted the motion as real on teh authority of the ancients and given rules for the motion, which necessarily must agree with their own observation, or else they would be meaningless even for them. This means that whatever be the rule, if applied to the time of the author, the position of the Sages must be got as between [Magha and Svati]. In giving the rules, the authors all consider the motion as direct and never as retrograde as fancied by some scholars like TSN, KV, VT etc, for which fancy there is no support anywhere. Let us take the rules one by one and examine them for the facts mentioned.
VM's rule is as follows (Br.Sam., XIII.3-4): The number of years gone from the time of Yudhisthira is to be found by adding 2526 to the 'Saka years gone at the time for which the position of the Sages is wanted. This is to be divided by 100, which gives the number of asterismal segments gone, and these are to be counted from [Magha] to get the position. In the context there is no mention of any retrograde motion, not is it mentioned that the number got is to counted backwards as in the case fo the [patas] like [Rahu]. In the absence of any such specific indication we do what is normally doen, i.e., count the segments forward, as in the case of all other [grahas] like the Sun etc. Working for VM's time, i.e., 427 'Saka, we get the middle of [Uttara Phalguni] as the position of the Sages, which is well
within the limit for agreement with observation. If we count backwards taking the motion as retrograde, we get the middle of [Pusya], which is far outside the limit, and this also shows that the rule implies only forward motion, as we have already determined.
[Arybhabhata II gives the rule in the form of cycles per Kalpa, even as the [Siddhantas] do for the planets. He says there are 15,99,998 cycles in the Kalpa and the cycles commence 30,24,000 years from the beginning of the Kalpa. Here too there is no indication of retrograde motion. Calculating from the above date we find that at the beginning of the present Kali the Sages are at 2.38 segments (counting from A'svini), i.e., they have passed [Bharani] and been in Krttika for 38 years. It is easily seen that at 662 Kali the Sages will cross to [Magha] according to this [Siddhanta]. Compare this with VM's rule that would give the crossing to [Magha] in the 7th century Kali (exactly speaking 653 Kali; for going back 2526 years from zero 'Saka, equal to 3179 Kali, we arrive at this date).
We now pass on the [Para'sara]. His rule is the same as that of [Aryabhata] II, with the difference that in [Para'sara] case the cycles begin at the commencement of the Kalpa itself. This would give for the commencement of Kali the position 2.34 [naksatras], counting, of course, from [A'svini], i.e., after crossing [Bharani], the [Sages] have been in [Krttika] for 34 years, and at 666 Kali the Sages pass on to [Magha]. See how close this is to 662 and 653, the dates according to [Aryabhata] II and VM, derived above.
Now for Lalla's rule: As said before, the rule is quoted by [Muni'svara] in his commentary on the [Siddhanta 'Siromani]. It is this : Deduct 14 from the Kali years gone and divide the remainder by 100. Asterisms are got, which are to be counted from [Rohini]. Here too it is to be noted that no backward counting is enjoined, and the rule must normally mean forward counting as in all rules where nothing is said. It is to be noted that according to thsi rule, the Sages pass to [Rohini] from [Krttika] 14 years after Kali set in, i.e., they have been in [Krttika] for 86 years before the beginning of Kali, (agreeing with VM with in half a segment). Taking the date of Lalla to be 650 A.D., the Sages would be at [Citra] in his time, According to 'Samhita, "Kratu, one of the Sages, enters 'Sravana at the commencement of Kali and the Sages have direct motion every year at the
rate of 8' (Which rate is equivalent to one asterism per century);" cf.
[yugadau visnitarayah kratur bhadye vyavasthitah/
pratyabdam "Praggatis" tesam astau lipta Muni'svara]//
(Quoted in Kamalakara's Com. on his own Siddh.
Tat. Viv., Bhagrahayutyadhikara, under stanza 25)
According to Vate'svara, Madh.15,
Eò¨É±Éʴɹ]õ®ú´ÉCjɺɮúÉä°ü½þ º¡Öò]õÊMÉ®úÉ%ʦÉʽþiÉÉ ¨ÉÖÊxÉ{ɪÉæªÉÉ&*
ªÉ <½þ iÉÉxÉÊ{É ´ÉÎS¨É ªÉÖMÉänÂù¨É ´ÉÉxÉ tÖSÉ®ú±É¤nù´É®úÉä ¨ÉÖVÉMÉÉä¹]õªÉ&** 1692**
So the rule would be to multiply the Kali years by 8 and divide by 800, to get the asterisms. These are to be counted forward from 'Sravana. It may be noted that here eastward motion, i.e., direct motion, is specifically stated. [Kamalakara], too, expalining the motion as really that of the presiding sges, says in the same context that the motion is eastward, i.e., cf., [sa praggatir munivarair bhagata muninam] (ib., 36). According to this rule, after 1100 A.D. the Sages would move to [Magha], and we can place this work at the earliest in c.1100 A.D.
Lastly, for the rule of [Muni'svara] given in his [Siddhanta Sarvabhauma]. Deduct 600 from the Kali years, Double the remainder and divide by 15. The position of of the Sages in degrees in got. This divided by 30 gives the position in the [rasis]. This rule again clearly takes the motion as direct. According to [Muni'svara] the Sages cross to A'svini at 600 years Kali (which is equivalent to the statement of 'Sakalya, for accoding to 'Sakalya's rule too the Sages enter A'svini at 600 Kali). At teh time of [Muni'svara], according to hi sown rule, the Sages would have crossed from [Citra] to [Svati] which is just outside the limit, and which position [Muni'svara] should have accepted as agreeing with with observation because the difference was not much. (It would have satisfied him better if some astronomer had said or if he could obtain, by quibbling, the Sages were at 'Sravistha or 'Satabhisak at teh commencement of Kali. No such thing was available, and the best he could have was 'Sakalya, and he had to be satisfied with that).
Thus all authorities either state or imply only direct motion, and there is no authority for retrograde motion. That is why scholars like [Cunningham] (as already mentioned), "Sriyut 'Sris' Chandraa Vidyarnava, Dr. Jayaswal and many others" (in the words of Dr. Triveda,JIH XIX, ii) have
considered the motion famous astrologers of Banares who informed Col. Wilford", (cf. Triveda, ib., p. 10), and the author of [Kaliyugarajavrttanta] who believe the motion to be retrograde. But in the light of what we have said, they must be wrong (see Fn. 15).
III (b). The Puranas on the motion of the Sages
Also, the [Puranas] do not say whether the motion is direct or retograde. We cannot get any indication regarding the direction of the motion of the Sages from the Puranas themselves, as they are vitiated by emendations and interpolations, made to affect the very point which we are trying to decide. Still, some scholars resort to them for support, and it is not surprising that they fail to establish anything. Dr. Triveda is one such: he not only does not prove his point, but proves the contrary of what he desires to prove, as also the lack of clearness in his mind. For e.g.: He says: (i) "But in fact their (the Sages') motion is retrograde as from the word Precession, pre=purva or east, and cession from Fr. cedare=go" (ib., P.11). (ii) "Kamalakara Bhatta also says in his [Siddhanta Tattvaviveka], 'Pratyabdam Praggatis tesam'; that is, in every year their motion is from West to East." (ib.p.11). (iii) "C.A. Young in his A Text Book of General Astronomy published in 1904 says on page 141, 'The Equinox moves westward on the ecliptic, as if it advanced to meet the Sun on each annual return'. So it is certain that their motion is contrary to that of the SWun, and it is retrograde." (ib.,p.11)
Let us examine his statements here. (i) If Precession is retrograde, why should the motion of the Sages be retrograde also? Are they the same phenomenon? If he means that the motion is derivable from precession, he has not shown it, and cannot show it, because it is not so (see Fn.11 (i) above). Even if some connection be established between the two, in the period we are considering the simulated motion would be directed only opposite to Precession (see Fn.11(i). He is not aware that the derivation he gives for the word 'Precession would mean direct motion even for Precession, and not retrograde motion, for 'going east' means 'direct motion'. (ii) Dr. Triveda's quotation from Kamalakara is plainly against himself, for 'from west to east' is 'direct motion', and not otherwise as Dr. Triveda thinks. (iii) Young rightly says that the Equinox moves westward, i.e. it has retrograde motion. But what has that to do with the Sages? Triveda
does not perceive that from here it can be understood that it is westward motion that is retrograde, and not eastward motion, as he thinks.
Under the delusion that he has proved the motion of the Sages to be retrograde, Dr. Triveda proceeds to apply this to the following statement in the [Puranas] in order to establish his thesis that the interval between [Pariksit] and Nanda is 1500 years (given by one reading ) and not 1015 or 1050 years (given in certain other readings)(cf. Triveda, ib., pp.1-3, 12-15). We shall briefly examine this in order to expose the errors in his reasoning, for if he establishes his reasoning, for if he establishes his point by using his theory of retrograde motion, that might be taken by some as a point in favour of the theory of retrograde motion itself, even after all that has been said by us to establish that the motion is direct.
The Puranic stament is as follows:
[Mahapadmabhisekat tu yavaj janma Pariksitah/
(oR yavat Pariksito janma yavan Nandabhisecanam.)
evam varsasahasram tu jneyam panca'saduttaram]
(1050)//
The last foot has the variants : 'satam panca da'sottaram (i.e., 1510) or [pancada'sottaram] (i.e., 1015) or [panca'satottaram (i.e., 1500) (Visnu Purnana, IV.xxiv.104; [Bhagavata], XII.ii 26; etc.). Triveda's thesis is to establish the interval to be 1500 or 1510 (according to two readings given) using the Saptarsi Era given in the following Puranic statement:
[Prayasyanti yada caite purvasadham maharsayah]/
(OR yada maghbhyo yasyanti purvasadham maharsayah)/
[tada Nandat Prabhrtyesa Kalir vrddhim gamisyati]//
(Visnu Purana, IV. xxiv.112; [Bhagavata],XII.ii.32; etc.)
It is said here that when the Sages pass from [Magha], (their position at the beginning of Kali when [Pariksit] was ruling), to [Purvasadha] at the time of Nanda, the Kali will worsen. From [Magha] to [Purvasadha] the Sages pas 10 asterisms in their course, taking the motion to be direct, (as we have established), i.e., about 1000 years from [Pariksit] to Nanda (or 3700 years if one cycle has gone), and this is supported by two readings. But Triveda suggests 1500 years for this interval, supported by the other two readings. Counting backwards from [Magha] to [Purvasadha] (in accordance with his theory of retrograde motion0 he should get at least 16,
not counting both. Thus he should get at least 1600 years as the interval. But this will not suit his theory, and so he omits to count 'Sravana, and gets the 15 asterisms he wants, to give him the required interval of 1500 years! (see ib., p. 12, lines 10-11). This is proof that the author of the Puranas, who employed the Saptarsi Era for purposes of chronology,has taken the motion only to be direct and used the Era: and not retrograde, for if taken as such, at least 1600 years will be got as the interval, which is not supported by any reading of the text.
One thing clearly emerges from this discussion, viz. that the motion of the Sages as given by the astronomers and the Puranas is direct and not retrograde. So VM can be right in saying that the Sages were in [Magha] in the 7th century Kali and in this he is supported by [Aryabhata]II, and [Para'sara], as well as the 'Srutarsis. Therefore Yudhisthira's reign associated with the Sages at [Magha] can well be in the 7th cent. Kali, also supported as it is by a whole school of chronologists. As the 'Saka Era mentioned is to come 2526 years after this period, it is the 'Saka of 78 A.D. that must have been meant by VM in the 'sloka, Br.Sam.XIII.3, and not the one postulated by TSN etc., concurring with what we have established already in the previous study from an astronomical point of view.
IV. The Aihole Inscription
Now we shall take up the Aihole Inscription and show that the 'Saka used in it is only that of 78 A.D. and not the other one alleged by TSN and echoed by certain other scholars. Discussing the age fo VM in his Age of Sankara, Pt.I-D, pp. 224ff., TSN takes up the Aihole Inscription for consideration, and tries to show that the 'Saka Era mentioned therein is his own 'Saka of 550 B.C. from the synchronism found in it between the 'Saka Era and the Bharata War. The portion of the inscription relevant to our discussion is the following:
[trim'satsu trisahasresu bharatad ahavaditah/
saptabda'satayuktesu 'sa (?ga) tesvabdesu pancasu/
panca'satsu Kalau Kale satsu panca'satasu ca/
samasu samatitasu 'Sakanam api bhubhujam]//
In trying to interpret this passage, Dr. Fleet at first (Indian Antiquary, V(1876)67-73) made the mistake of thinking that the time of the inscription
is given in three eras, viz. [Bharata War, the Kali and the 'Saka. Perhaps he was led into this mistake by the word 'sata' occuring thrice (sapataba'satayuktesu, 'satesvabdesu, and panca'satasu) and the statement in the Puranas that the Kali epoch is different from the Bharata War. But subsequently, in IA VIII (1879) 240-41, Dr. Fleet acknowledged his mistake and gave the correct reading by emedning 'satesu into gatesu (for, in the Kanarese-Telugu script in which the inscription is engraved on roch, ga, with a horizontal stroke across would become 'sa and the engraver might have been misled into adding the stroke here by the large number of 'sa letters occurring the context; or it might have been caused by weathering) and interpreting the passage as 3735 years from the Kali epoch, after the Bharata War, and 556 years 'Saka kings, i.e. 556 years in ('Salivahana) 'Saka Era. This interpretation is accepted by all scholars (see for instance, Kielhorn, Ep. Ind., VI (1900-01) 1-12), except TSN and KV. But the emendation of 'satesu into gatesu is accepted by TSN. He also accepts the fact that only two dates are given, of which one is 'Saka Era. This necessitates the two expressions 'after the [Bharata War]' and 'from the Kali epoch' to be taken together, as giving one date. If the Kali epoch is meant as important and the [Bharata War] is mentioned here simply to described it, without any more troble we get the interpretation, '3735 years from the Kali epoch', which beautifully synchronises with the 'Salivahan 'Saka year 556 given, (about this number there is no dispute), for if we deduct from 3735 the wellknown converter 3179 we get 556, which itself proves that this must be the 'Salivahana 'Saka of 78 A.D. If, on the other hand, the [Bharata War] is taken as important, and also that the War was fought 36 years earlier (TSN makes it 38 to suit his calculations) according to one sub-school taken advantage of by TSN, then there is trouble, for the War took place in 3140 B.C. according to TSN. 3735 years from this date there is no 'Saka epoch to synchronise with. But TSN sorely wants it to synchronise with the 'Saka of 550 B.C. postulated by him. He clutches at an error committed in a collection of old records publihed for literary study, the [Pracinalekhamala, (N.S. Press, Bombay, Kavyamala Series 16), thinking that it will help him. In the [Pracinalekhamala, saptabda'sata] is printed as [sahabda'sata]. Whether this is a misprint or an intended emendation, we do not know. But this much we can say, that the letter is
certainly pata and not ha, as anyone can verify from the photo-print of the inscription reproduced in IA V (1876) op.p.69,ib.VIII (1879) op.p.241, Ep.Ind.VI (1900-01) op. p.7, etc.) and comparing the letters. Not only this; the word [saha] will be a repetition, because there is the word [yukta] giving the same meaning; also [saha] requires an instrumental to govern, which is not available in the verse. In spite of all this, TSN takes this [saha] instead of [sapta] and gets the number 31355, of course, as we have pointed out, with a duplicate [saha] serving no purpose in the interpretation ) and begins to effect the sybchronisation thus (see p.189, plot in Indian Chronology);The Aihole Inscription is 3135 years frm the War, viz. 3140 B.C. So the date of the inscription is 5 B.C. And then the inscription is 556 years from the 'Saka epoch (of TSN), viz. 550 B.C. 556 years from 550 B.C. is 6 B.C. (so says TSN), for he wants it, and wish is father to thought). 6 B.C. is only one year off 5 B.C. (obtained above), which can be easily accounted for, and the synchronism established; which shows that the 'Saka mentioned in the inscription is his 'Saka of 550 B.C. But TSN and KV who quotes him seem to be unaware of the blunder in the calculation, and that 556 years from 550 B.C., is not 6 B.C., but 7 A.D.; and this date is 11 years off 5 B.C., and no amount of jugglery can spirit this period of 11 years off and the synchronism is far from being establised. Waht is more, having failed to prove the 550 B.C. 'Saka, but thinking that it has been proved, TSN indulges in a tirade against Orientalists and their ways (see p.190, ibid.), unconscious all the while, that it all applies to TSN himself!: "Alas ! it is a great pity that these Orientalists should at first conceive a theory of their own, and then actively set themselves to work out the same by hook or by crook, by changing every authority to suit their own favourite hypotheses, and by hoisting up the fabricated text as the only true version, while they perfectly know all the while in their own heart of hearts that they have been able to achieve their objects only by fabricated evidence and meddling with the original authorities..... The Orientalists simply beg the question, and beat about the bush in discussing such matters (here, explanation of the word 'Saka), blowing hot and cold at the same time, misjudging themselves, and misleading others, and thereby keeping back the Truth as far away as possible from the ken of ordinary public." How aptly these words apply to TSN himself!
V. The Evidence of the Jyotirvidabharana
Even though we have stated that the evidence of the [Jyotirvidabharana] does not merit any consideration (see previous paper), still because it is made much of by TSN, KV and VT (see for e.g.,KV : JAAHRS XXI (1950-52) 28-32, Chronology of Nepal History, Vijayawada, 1953, pp. 14-19; VT: JIH XXVIII (91950) 107-08), we shall consider that too. Their contention is that the author of the [Jyotirvidabharana] is the famous Kalidasa himself as claimed by the work in Kali 3068 (34 B.C.), and that therefore VM cannot belong to 427 in the 'Saka of 78 A.D. (corresponding to 505 A.D.), but only in the postulated Cyrus (or Andhra) 'Saka or 550 B.C. (corresponding to 123 B.C.), and that thus the Cyrus (or Andhra) 'Saka is proved. But the work could not have been written before 78 A.D., (though it says it was written in 34 B.C.), for in that work 'Salivahana is mentioned as a 'saka-kara (founder of an era), and that he founded the 'Saka Era 135 years after Vikrama founded his own 'Saka 3044 years after Kali (i.e. 57 B.C.). How could [Kalidasa], the alleged author of the work, be the contemporary (however junior it might be ) of VM (said to have lived in 123 B.C.) and at the same time know the starting of the ['Salivahana 'Saka in 78 A.D.?
The late date of the [Jyotirvidabharana] can be established also by other internal evidence in that work. Thus in giving the rule for the calculation of [ayanam'sa], it is stated that 445 is to be decucted from the years in the 'Saka Era and the remainder divided by 60. Cf.
['Sakah 'sarambhodhiyugo (445) nito hrto
manam khatarkair (60) ayanam'sakas syuh]/ (1.18a)
This means that in 445 'Saka the [ayanam'sa] is zero. This can be only the ['Salivahana 'Saka], for Indian astronomical works give zero [ayanam'sa] for c. 421 ['Sali]. ['Saka (Kali 3600, (some give 444). It cannot be argued that the author means the postulated Cyrus Era here, because firstly among the six ['saka] at all, and secondly nodody gives zero [ayanam'sa] for 123 B.C. (though he takes it as the starting point for calculation) (see Jih XXVIII. 106) and our discussion on it in the previous paper). Thus, having seen that he is alter than 445 of this 'Saka, (523 A.D.), for this rule can be applied only later than 445 'Saka, no instruction begin given as to what to do if the time taken is before 445 'Saka.
Again, the rule given in the [Jyotirvidabharana] for finding the year in the 60-year cycle of Jupiter corroborates this. If it is applied to the current year, 1881 'Saka (1959-60), we get the year [Virodhikrt], which we also get if we work it out according to the methods in the [Siddhantas]. If the year reckoned in the Cyrus Era or if the Vikrama Era is used in the rule, there is disagreement. So it is the ['Salivahana 'Saka] that is required to be used in this rule and not the Cyrus 'Saka not the Vikrama 'Saka which reigned in his time (for he says he is a contemporary of Vikrama). Thus, again, the conclusion that the author is later than the starting of the ['Salivahana 'Saka] follows, and his use of that 'saka.
In answer to these objections KV seems to have argued that Kalidasa could actually have lived earlier than the ['Salivahana 'Saka] epoch and have mentioned that epoch as a future historical event ont he basis of the ['sastras] (evidently meaning the Bhavisya Purana etc). But then how did the 'sastras know? Does KV want us to believe that they actually predicted future events? Clearly the ['sastras] themselves should have been written after the ['Salivahana 'Saka] epoch, and the [Jyotirvidabharana] should be alter still. And the jumbling of people of various ages already alluded to! We are asked to take this bundle of lies as sober history!
In the same manner other romances, like the [Kathasaritsagara], Bhojaprabahdha], Vikramarkacarita etc., (there is no dearth of them) based on popular stories should be dismissed wherever they contradict what may be judged as solid evidence, for we do not know who their authors were, nor what equipment they had for giving historical facts.
Thus in all places where the word 'Saka is used for the name of an era, it is the 'Saka of 78 A.D. (what latterly came to be called ['Salivahana 'Saka) that is meant. Further, there is no evidence to show that an era was started in 550 or 551 B.C. in Persia or in India as postualted by TSN and accepted by KV, which he calls the Cyrus Era, or as postulated by VT, which he calls the Andhra ERa. It may be that Cyrus founded the Persian Empire in 550 B.C., but what evidence is there to show that he started an era then? No such era was in use in Persia itself, not to speak of India. Many great events happen in the reigns of great kings. But they are not necessarily the starting points of eras. (VT does not even mention a great event in 550-51 B.C. for the starting of his Andhra Era). Now, these people
have taken of varied historical worth. Let them by all means attempt it, for it is only too true that unconscious prejudice has had some hand in the writing of the history of our land. But what we wish to show here is that their stand on the interpretation of the term 'Saka Era, with all it sramifications, is wrong, and will not help them, as also the various other ideas of theirs which we have shown to be wrong. Also we wish to point out that attributing base motives and questioning the bona fides of people (the writings of TSN and KV are replete with these) will not only not help, but may also be "Paid back with interest", as Dr.P.V.Kane says.
DETERMINATION OF THE DATE OF THE
MAHABHARATA: THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF *
Hindus generally believe that the story of the [Mahabharata} (MBh.) is a narrative of events that actually happended, and that they all took place near the end of the [Dvaparayuga] and the beginning of the [Kaliyuga]. Some hold that the War ended with the [yuga] and many, supported by the [Puranas], say that [Krsna] passed away at the end of the [yuga] and so the War took place a few years earlier. About the question of the time when the [Dvapara] ended, there is difference of opinion. The popular view is that [Dvapara] ended and Kali began at the time fixed for it by the astronomical [siddhantas], 3179 years before the 'Saka era of 78 A.D., which corresponds to Friday, 18th February, 3102 B.C., sunrise, or the previous midnight according to some schools. We do not know the exact grounds on which the [siddhantins] fixed the date as 3179 years before the 'Saka era of 78 A.D. Most probably, the first [siddhantins], like the author of the 'Old' [Suryasiddhanta] and [Aryabhata], fixed the point of time as a convenient epoch, when the mean planets, according to them, coincided with the zero-point of the zodiac, and the later astronomers accepted it, and adjusted their own planetary cycles to agree with the epoch exactly, or nearly there, finding the difference to be small.
But there are other dates fixed for the end of [Dvapara] by people like [Varahamihira], on the authority of the astronomical [Samhitas] and tradition current in their times. [Varahamihira] fixes the date as c. 2449 B.C., which can be known from his statement in hsi [Brhatsamhita] that the [Saptarsis] stood at [Magha] when [Yudhisthira] was ruling and that the year in his era
can be got by adding 2526 to the years of the 'Saka era. The authority for this is [Vrddha-Garga's] statement:
EòʱÉuùÉ{É®úªÉÉä& ºÉxvÉÉè κlÉiÉɺiÉä Ê{ÉiÉÞnèù´ÉiɨÉÂ*
Kalhana, in his [Rajatarangini], giving the chronology of the Kashmir kings in the [Saptarsi] or [Laukika] era current in Kashmir and the Himalayan regions, accepts [Varahamihira's view in toto, saying that people who fixed others dates were misguided:
¦ÉÉ®úiÉÆ uùÉ{É®úÉxiÉä%¦ÉÚuùÉiÉǪÉäÊiÉ Ê´É¨ÉäʽþiÉÉ&*
EäòÊSÉnäù¹ÉÉÆ ¨ÉÞ¹ÉÉ iÉä¹ÉÉÆ EòɱɺÉÆJªÉÉ |ÉSÉÊEò®äú**
The Jain tradition, giving 2634 B.C. for the [Yudhisthira] era is only a variation of [Varahamihira's view. The [Saptarsicara] of [Para'sara] and the [Arysiddhanta] of [Aryabhata]II, giving [Magha] for the sages in the seventh century of astronomical Kali, and the [Matsyapurana], giving [Krttika] for the beginning of Kali, support [Varahamihira].
But many think that both c.3100 B.C. and c. 2450 or c. 2600 B.C. for the [Bharata] events are periods too early, considering the state of society and the political conditions depicted in the MBh. They try to fix the Kaliyuga epoch coupled with [Yudhisthira's] rule, by reckoning backwards from the time of the Nanda dynasty, which historians have fixed at c. 400 B.C. onwards. The [Visnupurana] and the [Bhagavata] state:
¨É½þÉ{ÉZÉÉ%ʦɹÉäEòÉkÉÖ ªÉÉ´ÉVVÉx¨É {É®úÒÊIÉiÉ&*
(or ªÉÉ®úi{É®úÒÊIÉiÉÉä VÉx¨É ªÉÉ´ÉzÉxnùÉʦɹÉäSÉxɨÉÂ*)
B´ÉÆ ´É¹ÉǺɽþºjÉÆ iÉÖ YÉäªÉÆ {É\SÉɶÉnÖùkÉ®ú¨ÉÂ**
Variants: (1) ¶ÉiÉÆ {É\SÉ nù¶ÉÉäkÉ®ú¨É (1510), (2) YÉÉäªÉÆ {É\SÉnù¶ÉÉäkÉ®ú¨É (1015), (3) YÉÉäªÉÆ {É\SɶÉiÉÉäiÉäiÉ®ú¨É (1500).
The above would mean that between [Pariksit's] (grandson of the Pandavas) birth and Nanda's coronation, the interval is 1053 years (variants : 1510, 1015, 1500). From this, they fix [Pariksit's] time as c. 1500 B.C. (or 2000 B.C.) and thence the time of the [Bharata] story.
Besides these four main periods, several other periods are fixed based on various hypotheses, some plausible, some grotesque. For e.g., some scholars take the yuga measure of 12000 years as human years instead of divinde, and fix a date accordingly. One interprets the word [sama] and [varsa] used in the [Puranas] as half-years and brings down the story to c. 1200 B.C. But few scholars make any clear distinction between the period of the 'events' and the period when they were written down in the form of the epic [Mahabharata], while the orthodox traditional belief is that [Vyasa], grandfather of the [Pandavas] and Kauravas, wrote the work, and his pupil [Vai'sampayana] narrated it to king Janamejaya, grandson of the [Pandavas].
Determining the period thus, each in his own way, these scholars try to fix the year and exact date of the war from the calendrical details and various astronomical phenomena mentioned in the context of the War, like certain planetary combinations, occurrences of eclipses etc. This is not an easy matter, because there is a lot of contradiction between various sets of planetary combinations themselves and among the other phenomena mentioned. Some of these passages may be set out here:
1. ʴɶÉÉ®ú´ÉɪÉÉ ºÉ¨ÉÒ{ɺlÉÉè ¤ÉÞ½þº{ÉÊiɶÉxÉè¶SÉ®úÉè**
(MBh., Bhisma, 3.27)
2. ´ÉEòÉ%xÉÖ´ÉGÆò EÞòi´ÉÉ SÉ ¸É´ÉhÉÆ {ÉÉ´ÉEò|ɦÉ&*
¤ÉÉÀ®ú覃 ºÉ¨ÉÉ´ÉÞiªÉ ±ÉÉäʽþiÉÉRÂóMÉÉä ´´É´ÉκlÉiÉ&** (Bhisma, 3.18)
3. ¦ÉÞMÉÖºÉÚxÉÖvÉ®úÉ{ÉÖjÉÉè ¶ÉʶÉVÉÉäxÉ ºÉ¨ÉÎx´ÉiÉÉè*
SÉ®ú¨ÉÆ {ÉÉ{bÖ÷{ÉÖjÉÉhÉÉÆ {ÉÖ®úºiÉÉiºÉ´ÉÇ (EÖò°ü) ¦ÉÚ¦ÉÖVÉɨÉ ** ('Salya, 11.17)
4. ¶ÉÖEò& |ÉÉä¹`ö{Énäù {ÉÚ´Éè ºÉÆ#É°üZÉ Ê´É®úÉäSÉiÉä *
=kÉ®äú iÉÖ {ÉÊ®úGò¨ªÉ ºÉʽþiÉ& ºÉʨÉnùÒIÉiÉä** (Bhisma, 3.15)
Another gives:
5. ¤ÉÞ½þº{ÉÊiɺºÉÆ{ÉÊ®ú´ÉɪÉÇ ®úÉäʽþhÉÔ ¤É¦ÉÚ´É SÉxuùÉEÇòºÉ¨ÉÉä ʴɶÉÉÆ{ÉiÉä**
(Karna, 100.17)
6. ¨ÉPÉɺ´ÉRÂóMÉÉ®úEòÉä ´ÉHò& ¸É´ÉhÉä SÉ ¤ÉÞ½þº{ÉÊiÉ&*
¦ÉMÉÆ xÉIÉjɨÉÉGò¨ªÉ ºÉÚªÉÇ{ÉÖjÉähÉ {ÉÒb÷ªÉiÉä** (Bhisma, 3.14)
7. |ÉÉVÉÉ{ÉiªÉÆ Ê½þ xÉIÉjÉÆ OɽþºiÉÒIÉhÉÉä ¨É½þÉtÖÊiÉ&*
¶ÉxÉè·É®ú& {ÉÒb÷ªÉÊiÉ {ÉÒb÷ªÉxÉ |ÉÊhÉxÉÉä%ÊvÉEò¨ÉÂ**
EÞòi´ÉÉ SÉÉRÂóMÉÉ®úEòÉä ´ÉGÆò VªÉä`öɪÉÉÆ ¨ÉvÉÖºÉÚnù¨É*
+yÉÉvÉÉÆ |ÉÉlÉǪÉiÉä ¨ÉèjÉÆ ºÉÆMɨɪÉÊzÉ´É ** (Udyoga, 143. 8-9)
In the first set cited above (i.e., 1-4), we are told that Jupiter and Staurn are near the asterism [Visakha]. Mars is near [Uttarasadha], Abhijit (Brahmarasi) and ['Srvana]. In the second set, (5-7), Jupiter is said to be near Rohini. Mars is retrograde in [Magha]. Jupiter is in 'Sravana. (This contradicts two other statements.) Saturn is said to be in [Purvaphalguni]. Saturn afflicts (?) Rohini. Mars is retrogtrade in Jyestha and is about to go to [Anuradha]. To add to the confusion, many people interpret the comets of different colours mentioned in [Bhismaparva], chapter 3, as planets and, that too,each one differently.
Among the contradictory phenomena we can give the eclipse mentioned:
8.SÉxuùºÉÚ´ÉÉǦÉÉè OɺiÉÉè BEò¨ÉɺÉÔ jɪÉÉänù¶ÉҨɠ* (Bhisma, 3.33)
Here a lunar eclipse, and next a solar eclipse are mentioned as having occurred before the war. Then, at the time of [Duryodhana's] death the statement occurs:
®úɽÖþ®úOɺÉnùÉÊnùiªÉÆ +{É´ÉÇÊhÉ Ê´É¶ÉÉÆ{ÉiÉä* ('Salya, 27.10)
mentioning another solar eclipse so near, when a lunar eclipse had occurred before the first solar eclipse.
Again, several impossible and some very rare phenomena, mentioned merely to indicate that these phenomena presage evil, are taken by many as having actually occurred, adding to the difficulty_
9. jɪÉÉänù¶ªÉɨÉÉ´ÉɺªÉÉÆ iÉÉÆ ]Þõ¹]Âõ´ÉÉ |ÉÉ %¥É´ÉÒÊnùnù¨ÉÂ*
SÉiÉÖnù¶ÉÔ {É\SÉnù®úÒ EÞòiÉäªÉÆ ®úɽÖþhÉÉ {ÉÖxÉ&**8*.
|ÉÉ{iÉä ´Éè ¦ÉÉ®úiÉÉä ªÉÖuäù |ÉÉ{iÉÉ SÉÉtIɪÉɪÉxÉ&**9**
SÉxuùºÉÚªÉÉǤÉÖ¦ÉÉè OɺiÉÉä BEòɼxÉÉ Ê½þ jɪÉÉänù¶ÉÒ¨ÉÂ*
+{É´ÉÇÊhÉ OɽäþhÉèiÉÉä |ÉVÉɺÉÆIɪÉʨÉSUôiÉ&**28**
<¨ÉÉÆ iÉÖ xÉÉ%ʦÉVÉÉxÉä%RÆó +¨ÉÉ´ÉɺªÉÉÆ jɪÉÉänù¶ÉÒ¨ÉÂ**32**
(Mausala, Ch, 2)
SÉxuùºÉÚªÉÉÇ´ÉÖ¦ÉÉè OɺiÉÉè ʽþ (BEò¨ÉɺÉÔ) jɪÉÉänù¶ÉÒ¨ÉÂ**
(Bhisma, 3.3)
ºÉÉä¨ÉºªÉ ±ÉI¨É ´ªÉÉ´ÉÞkÉÆ ®úɽÖþ®úEÇò¨ÉÖ{ÉèÊiÉ SÉ** (Udyoga 143. 11)
½þiÉä EòhÉæ.... ºÉÉä¨ÉºªÉ {ÉÖjÉÉä%¦ÉªÉÖÊnùªÉÉªÉ ÊiɪÉÇEÂò** (Karna 94.51)
+±ÉIªÉ& |ɦɪÉɽþÒxÉ& {ÉÉèhÉǨÉɺÉÔ SÉ EòÉÌiÉEòÒ¨ÉÂ*
SÉxuùÉä%¦ÉÚnùÊOÉ´ÉhÉÇ·É ºÉ¨É ({ÉZÉ)´É{ÉÉèxɦɺºÉlɱÉä** (Bhisma,2.2)
SÉiÉÖnÇù¶ÉÓ {É\SÉnù¶ÉÓ ¦ÉÚiÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÉÈ iÉÖ ¹ÉÉäb÷¶ÉÒ¨ÉÂ*
<¨ÉÉÆ iÉÖ xÉÉʦÉVÉÉ´Éä%½Æþ +¨ÉÉ´ÉɺªÉÉÆ jɪÉÉänù¶ÉÒ¨ÉÂ**(Bhisma 3.32)
®úɽÖþ®úOɺÉnùÉÊnùiªÉÆ +{É´ÉÇÊhÉ Ê´É¶ÉÉÆ{ÉiÉä** ('Salya, 27.10)
ÊjɹÉÖ ºÉ´ÉÉè¹ÉÖ xÉIÉjÉxÉIÉjÉÉä¹ÉÖ Ê´É¶ÉÉÆ{ÉiÉä*
MÉÞwÉ& ºÉÆ{ÉiÉiÉä ¶ÉÒ¹Éæ VÉxɪÉxÉ ¦ÉªÉ¨ÉÖkɨɨÉÂ** (Bhisma, 3.31)
Scholars trying to establish their conclusions interpret these verses differently, some neglecting one set and some another, some giving acceptable meanings and some far-fetched and extremely strained ones. A few examples will show to what extent these people go.
Passage 2, cited above, is interpreted thus: The planet Mars moved retrograde again and again, towards the constellation 'Sravana, and occupied the constellation of [Brahma], i.e., Jupiter. The interpreter is unaware that [Brahmarasi] must mean 'the group presided over by a technical term used in astronomy and not 'again and again'. Passage 3 is interpreted thus: 'The planets Mars, Venus and Mercury were in fromt or to the east of the eldest of the sons of Pandu who were the masters of the whole land. To the interpreter, [caramam Panduputranam] means Yudhisthira, being the last counted from the last of the sons of [Pandu], while it means, simply, 'behind the sons of [Pandu] and in fromt of the Kuru kings'. Line 9 of passage 9 is interpreted: The planet Mercury arose concealed, (invisibly). The meaning 'invisibly' is given to [tiras], not realising that [anc] with [tiras] means, only 'across or obliquely'. Passage 5 is interpreted: 'Jupiter, having made [Rohini] to conceal herself (i.e., set), became like the sun or moon'. The passage means only that, Jupiter by his lustre hid Rohini. Passage 6 is interpreted: Mars is retrograde in [Magha], and Jupiter in 'Sravana. Saturn is afflicting [Purvaphalguni]. In the next verse (not quoted here) there is the word [sahita] which this interpreter takes to mean 'waiting', and cites as an example the [Raghuvam'sa] verse, [dvitranyt ahany arhasi sodhum arhan].
In 9, line 8 is said to mean: 'The lunar eclipse has already happened (in Karttika Purnima) and a solar eclipse is going to happen in the next [Amavasya]. Actually, the first part means that the dark patch on the moon is inverted (vyavrttam, not nivrttam). In line 16 of passage 9, [grdhra] is interpreted as "an evil planet", instead of 'eagle' which itself indicates an evil omen.
Thus, different years are fixed by different persons as follows:
N.Jagannatha Rao 3139 B.C.
T.S. Narayana Sastri c. 3126 B.C.
K.V. Abhayankar c. 3101 B.C.
C.V. Vaidya Do.
P.C. Sengupta 2449 B.C.
Karandikar 1931 B.C.
P.V. Kane c. 1900 B.C.
S.B. Dikshit c. 1500 B.C.
K.G. Sankara Aiyar 1198 B.C.
K.L.Daftari 1191 B.C.
V.Gopala Aiyar 1194 B.C.
Within the year, the dates are fixed for the different occurrences by the day's [naksatra] or [tithi], and the interval in days between one occurrence and another, given. Here, too, there are discrepancies and misinterpretations,leading to different dates. Though many have concluded that the war began on [Karttika] New Moon day, some say that it began on [Margasirsa 'Sukla Ekada's] day. The day of [Bhisma's] death is stated at places as [Magha 'Sukla Astami], while at others as [Ekadasi]. Cf.:
EòÉè¨ÉÖnäù ¨ÉÉ漃 ®äú´ÉiªÉÉÆ ¶É®únùxiÉä ʽþ¨ÉÉMÉä*
º¡òÒiɺɺªÉºÉÖ®ú´Éä EòɱÉä......**(Udyoga,80.7)
¶É´ÉÉê¹ÉÊvÉ´ÉxÉ°ü¡òÒiÉ& ¡ò±É´ÉÉxɱ{ɨÉÊIÉEò&*
Êxɹ{ÉRÂóEòÉä..... ...........**
ºÉ{iɨÉÉSSÉÉ%Ê{É Ênù´ÉºÉÉiÉ +¨ÉÉ´ÉɺªÉÉ ¦ÉʴɹªÉÊiÉ*
ºÉÆOÉɨÉä ªÉÖVªÉiÉÉÆ iɺªÉÉÆ iÉɨÉɽÖþ& ¶ÉGònäù´ÉiÉɨÉÂ**
(Udyoga, 143.18)
SÉi´ÉÉË®ú¶Énù½þÉxªÉt uäù ¨Éä ÊxɺºÉÞiɺªÉ ´Éè*
{ÉÖ¹ªÉähÉ ºÉ¨|ɪÉÉiÉÉä%κ¨É ¸É´ÉhÉä {ÉÖxÉ®úÉMÉiÉ&** ('Salya, 5.6)
xÉ EÖò´ÉÇÎxiÉ ´ÉSÉÉä ¨ÉZÉÆ EÖò®újÉ& EòɱÉSÉÉäÊnùiÉÉ&*
ÊxÉMÉÇSUôv´ÉÆ {ÉÉ{b÷´ÉäªÉÉ& {ÉÖ¹ªÉähÉ ºÉʽþiÉÉ ¨ÉªÉÉ** ('Salya, 35.10)
¶ÉÉ乪ÉÉä%½þ¨ÉºªÉÉÆ ¶ÉªªÉɪÉÉÆ ªÉÉ´ÉnùÉ´ÉiÉÇxÉÆ ®ú´ÉäUô.....
Ênù¶ÉÆ ´Éè¸É´ÉhÉÉGòÉxiÉÉÆ ªÉnùÉ MÉxiÉÉ Ênù´ÉÉEò®ú&*
ʴɨÉÉäIªÉÉä %½Æþ iÉnùÉ |ÉÉhÉÉxÉ ºÉÖ½þnù& ºÉÖÊ|ɪÉÉÊ´É´É**(Bhisma, 20.51-53)
iÉjÉ iÉä ºÉ֨ɽþÉi¨ÉÉiÉÉä xªÉ´ÉºÉxÉ EÖò°üxnùxÉÉ&*
¶ÉÉèSÉÆ Ê´É´ÉÇiÉ ÊªÉ¹ªÉxiÉÉä ¨ÉɺɨÉäEò ¤Éʽþ& {ÉÚ®úÉiÉÂ** 'Santi,1.2)
+É´ÉÞkÉä ¦ÉMÉ´ÉiªÉEäò ºÉ ʽþ ±ÉÉäEòÉxÉ MÉʨɹªÉÊiÉ **(Ib., 46.29)
ÊxÉ´ÉÞkɨÉÉjÉä i´ÉªÉxÉä =kÉ®äú ´Éè Ênù´ÉÉEò®äú*
ºÉ¨ÉÉ´Éä¶ÉªÉnùÉi¨ÉÉxÉ&..... ... ..... **(Ib., 47.3)
{É\SÉɶÉiÉÆ ¹É]Úõ SÉ EÖò°ü|É´ÉÒ®ú ¶Éä¹ÉÆ ÊnùxÉÉxÉÉÆ iÉ´É VÉÒÊ´ÉiɺªÉ**
(Ib., 51.10)
+ʹÉi´ÉÉ ¶É´ÉÇ®úÒ& ¸ÉÒ¨ÉÉxÉ {É\SÉɶÉzÉMÉ®úÉäkɨÉä**
(Anu'sasana, 167.5)
+¹]õ{É\SÉɶÉiÉÆ ®úÉjSÉ& ¶ÉªÉÉxɺªÉÉt ¨Éä MÉiÉÉ&*
¶É®äú¹ÉÖ ÊxÉʶÉiÉÉ%OÉä¹ÉÖ ªÉlÉÉ ´É{ÉǶÉiÉÆ iÉlÉÉ**
¨ÉÉMÉÉä%ªÉÆ ºÉ¨ÉxÉÖ|ÉÉ{iÉ& ¨ÉɺɺºÉÉ訪ÉÉä ªÉÖÊvÉι]õ®ú*
ÊjɦÉÉMɶÉä¹É& {ÉIÉÉä%ªÉÆ ¶ÉÖC±ÉÉä ¦ÉÊ´ÉiÉ֨ɽÇþÊiÉ**
(Anu'sasana.107.5)
But most of the scholars do not seem to have gone to the heart of the matter, placing before themselves clearly the two things that have got to be investigated, viz.: (1) How much of the [Bharata] story is true history, and when could it have happended. (2) When was it actually written down. Scholars who have studied the problemcritically are of opinion that there is a historical core in the story, but much fictitious matter has been added to it in course of time. The [Bharata] war must be true history, and the personages taking part in it, together with the line of the [Bharatas] and [Yadus], whose names occur frequently in Vedic literature, even as early as the Rgveda, not to speak of the [Brahmanas] like the 'Satapatha. The state of society and the political conditions point to a time earlier than the [Chandogya], one of the earliest of the upanisads, as can be seen from two statements in the work:
"EÞò¹hÉÉªÉ näù´ÉEòÒ{ÉÖjÉɪÉÉäCi´ÉÉä´ÉÉSÉ- ªÉt{ªÉäxÉSUÖô¹EòÉªÉ ºlÉÉhÉ´Éä §ÉªÉÉiÉ VÉɪÉÉä®úzɺªÉ ¶ÉÉ®ú´ÉÉ&, |É®úÉä½äþªÉÖ& {ɱÉɶÉxÉÒ <ÊiÉ**" "·ÉäiÉEäòiÉÖ½Çþ +É°ühÉäªÉ& EÖò°ü{ÉÉ\SÉɱÉÉxÉÉÆ ºÉʨÉÊiÉʨɪÉɪÉ*......"
The latter of the above statements shows that, at the time of the Upanisad, the Kuru and the [Pancala] country had coalesced, while at the time of the [Bharata] war they were different, the [Pancalas] being the allies of the [Pandavas]. It is quite natural for stories to gather accretions when they are repreated generation after generation. Most of the Superhuman and obviously exaggerated portions must have been added later. The core is generally placed between the eleventh and the nineth centuries B.C. Other story matter could have been added during a few subsequent centuries, when Krsna came to be deified. The lot of [Dharma'sastra] matter with the illustrative stories must have been added last, in the course of several generations. Anyhow, by the first or second century B.C. or A.D., the [Mahabharata] must have arrived at its present form, with a few bits of interpolations here and there, made later.
As for its writing, the language is that of the early classical period, for it is clearly later than that of the genuine upanisads . The addition of the later matter and the development of the classical language must have, naturally enough, gone on together. By the first or second century A.D. most of the whole [Mahabharata] must have attained the present form.
It is natural for story writers to incorporate into their storiesideas current in their own time. A lot of the astronomical facts found in the work, especially in the context of the war, must have been cooked up by these later writers in the light of their own knowledge, and added by different people at different times. That explains the contradictions. It must be clearly noted that the astrological ideas mentioned in the [Samhitas] which developed from the 2nd century B.C. could not have been current as early as the 11th to 9th century B.C. and , even if current, are not likely to be remembered after so many generations. By the first century A.D. or B.C., the astronomical [Samhita] had mostly been written, and naturally the ideas in them find a place in the work. The calendric system of the [Vedanga Jyotisa] continued to be current in this [Samhita] period, as can be seen from the [Garga Samhita], and ideas showing ['Sravistha] as being the first star (beginning the winter solstice) are in evidence, together with its shifting to 'Sravana, (c.third century B.C.) as can be gathered from the [Visvamitra] episode. The MBh. in its [Virataparva] ch. 52 contains the [Vedanga]calendric system.
Again, in the context of the war, it is natural for writers, especially of epics, to describe portents as happening to presage evil. The [Samhitas] devote chapters to describe these portents. The [Ketucara], on the appearance of comets, is full of portents, as also separate chapters devoted to portents like rare or unnatural, impossible or terrible phenomena. These have been included in the work. But most investigators have not interpreted these portions properly, for which a detailed study of the chapters on [Ketucara] and [Utpatas] in the [Brhat samhita] of [Varahamihira] would be advantageous. For example, the mention of the new moon together with solar eclipse occurring on [Trayodasi], the sun and the moon being eclipsed on the same day (the same month), and that on [Trayoda'si], Mercury moving across the sky, (i.e., north-south), the dark patch on the moon being inverted, the lunar eclipse at [Karttika[ full moon, the solar eclipse at [Karttika] new moon, and again the solar eclipse at the time of the mace-fight, are all intended by the writer to be impossible things occurring. The mention of the red moon indistinguishable from the red sky (digdaha), eagles falling on the flag, appearances of comets of different colours and in groups are all portents. Ignorance of teh fact that the 'grahas' of different colours mentioned in [Bhismaparva], chapter 3, are not planets but comets, has added to the confusion, because these scholars do not realise that, in the [Samhitas, the word 'graha' means primarily comets, (vide the chapter on Ketucarain the Brhatsamhita).
It would be clear from the abvoe, that all the skill shown in distorting the meanings of words and trying to show when these impossible or rare phenomena and contradictory planetary combinations would actually occur, has been wasted. Excepting the time of the year when the war might have happened, there is nothing in the [Mahabharata] to fix the year definitely. We do not have adequate data to fix either the happenings or when the work, even part, was written.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TAMIL ASTRONOMY*
1. Prefatory
By Tamil astronomy, I mean astronomy written by a Tamilian, whether the language is Tamil or Sanskrit. But, as far as I know, few outstanding works on astronomy have been written in Tamil Nadu, unlike in Kerala, where there has been a succession of sholars writing original astronomical works or commentaries, amking their oen extensive contributions. Two Tamil works on Mundane and Electional Astrology, [Cudamani Uttamudaiyan](13th century), and [Vime'svara Uttamudaiyan](17th century), contain small portions of astronomical computations of the planets, taken chiefly from the [Parahita] system of [Haridatta] of Kerala, as it is , or with the ['Sakabda] or [Parahita] [Bija] corrections carried out. Excluding two Sanskrit commentaries, one of which is by [Suryadeva-yajvan], only one work, called the [Vakyakarana] (c.1300), is wholely devoted to astronomy, and somewhat co-extensive with its content. It s source is mentioned to be the [Bhaskariya] as studied in Kerala, with the [Parahita] correction, and with [Haridatta's] [Parahita] method used. There is no original material in it. But being a [Karana] or manual,it has invented devices for ease of computation, especially by almanac-makers. It is in these devices that it is original, in so much as perpetually repreating planetary tables are given, with mnemonic phrases (vakyas), being used for numbers. It is in Sansrit. All later almanac-makers and computers of the Tamil country use this or Tamil adaptations of this.
About 1800 AD, first Le Gentil, and then Warren, in order to learn how the Tamils computed, asked some natives of Pondicherry to demonstrate to them. The methods and constants were almost exactly those of the [Vakyakarana]. Le Gentil and Warren reported the demonstration in their works, not knowing the source. Two periods, 248 days and 3,031 days, occur in the moon's tables. Any table-maker must get these as full days closely approximating to 9 and 110 anomalistic revolutions of the moon, on which the values must depend. But not considering this point, and since these periods occur in the [Vasistha Siddhanta] of the [Panca siddhantika], exhibiting Babylonian connections, Assyriologists and Indologists like Neugebauer began to declare a Babylonian derivation for the method, a mere surmise. Neugebauer publised a paper examining the methods of the pondicherry informant of Warren. The paper exhibits ignorance of the fact that the source for the informant was [Vakyakarana], since it was unknown to scholars at that time, not having been printed yet, and that this work itself is based on the works of [Bhaskara] I and Haridatta. Seeing Neugebauer's paper recently, I wrote to him explaining the position and incidentally clarifying certain difficulties expressed by him. But I thought I must write a history of Tamil astronomy, however meagre or insignificant it may be to lay the Babylonian ghost to rest. This short paper is the result. I consider this only as a beginning, so that others may follow up make their own contributions.
II. Introduction
By the word [Jyotisa], Hindus mean both astronomy and astrology combined. It is in three divisions, (1) [Siddhanta-skandha]: This consists of two parts, [Ganita], giving the positions of heavenly bodies, and [Gola], dealing with general astronomy like cosmogony. (2) [Samhita-skandha]: This too consists of two parts. In one, called Mundane Astrology, predictions for the whole world or regions of the world are made, based on planetary positions. Several other things considered useful to man, like knowledge of omens and indications of weather, are also given. In the other part called Electional Astrology auspicious moments for religious rites and ceremonies and journeys are given, together with rules for compatibility in marriage etc. (3) [Horaskandha] gives life predictions for individuals, based on the planetary positions at conception or birth or the moment when the astrologer is approached and requested to make the Predictions. The origin of the first two divisions can be traced to the Vedas and Vedic times. The last is declared by scholars to be foreign in origin, as can be inferred from the large number of Greek and Babylonain words used, and the period it appeared in India, namely the first or second century A.D.
From words like [Naksatradar'sa] and [Ganaka] occuring in the [Yajurveda], and a [Naksatra-vidya] being mentioned in the [Chandogya-upanisad], and the fact that a knowledge of the positions of the sun and the moon is required for fixing various Vedic rites and rituals, we can infer that the [Siddhanta] division must have originated very early. The [Vedanga-Jyotisa], by one [Lagadha], whose content points to the 12th century B.C. though re-written later, is the earliest astronomical work extent. The [Samhita] and the [Hora] [Skandhas] require planetary positions as a pre-requisite for [prediction]. So, by the period of the [Samhitas] which are earlier and flourished in the first few centuries B.C., astronomy proper must have been tolerably well developed. [Varahamihira] (first part of the 6th century A.D.) has condensed fice [Siddhanta] current during his time or earlier, in his [Pancasiddhantika. Of these the [Paitamaha] is the system of the [Vedanga-Jyotisa itself. The [Vasistha] and the [Pauli'sa] show clear connections with the [Babylonian] astronomy of the [Seleucid] period, and the [Romaka] with that of Alexandria. The [Saura] is indigenous, and a model of the Hindu [Siddhantic] astronomy. Being necessary to fix the times of the hundreds of Hindu religious rituals and the numerous fasts, feasts and festivals, as also for the use of the horary astrologers, scores of [Siddhantas] and [Karanas] or manuals were written by astronomers like [Aryabhata], [Varaha] and [Brahmagupta], together, with commentaries or expansions of these, which are themselves astronomical works. Together with the Sanskrit cultural migration to South India beginning with the last centuries B.C., astronomy too spread to the South.
As far as astronomical works are concerned, it seems that the Kerala country was the seat of its developments in the South. It is all based on teh [Aryabhatiya], with or without corrections called [Bijas], though several later astronomers like [Parame'svara], Nilakantha etc., made their own original contributions. How [Aryabhata] cam eto be connected with the Kerala country is yet to be explained. He is called [A'smaka] (i.e., one born in the A'smaka region) and some say that an early name of the erstwhile princely state of [Travancore] was [A'smaka] (Apte's Dictionary). But many say that the region near the Vindhyas was called the [A'smaka] country (i.e., the region of the [A'smaka] people), and [Aryabhata] was a native of this country. [Bhaskara] I, (c. A.D.600), who was an exponent of his school, seems to have belonged to the [Valabhi] regions in Gujarat. The [Aryabhata] school must have migrated to Kerala from this region, throguh some Keralite who had learnt astronomy at Valabhi or some [Valabhi] astronomer settling in Kerala. Anyhow, before the end of the 7th century the first well-known astronomer of Kerala, Haridatta, had appeared. He has written two works. [Mahamarganibandhana], and [Grahacaranibandhana]. The former must be a full treatise, but manuscripts of this are yet to be found. But the latter is well known as the [Parahitaganitam]. It gives an easy method for computers to use. Tables are given for each planet to find the equation of the centre and the equation of conjunction, at intervals of [3 3/4o] of the respective anomalies. Haridatta uses the [Aryabhatiya] constants in this without any corrections on the [Aryabhatiya], called the [Vagbhava] or ['Sakabada], or the [Parahita] corrections. It is said that he promulgated hi [Parahita] system of comuputation together with his corrections in 683 A.D. at [Tirunavay], to the astronomers who had assembled there for the ["Mamankam]" festival occurring once in twelve years.
From Kerala [Parahita] system and the [Aryabhatan] school of astronomy spread to the Tamil part, and the Tamil astrologers have been using the [Parahita] when they desired to compute the sun, moon and planets for predictions.
II. Tamil Astronomy
The first astronomers of the Tamil country, known to us at [present, was [Suryadevayajvan]. He has written many fine commentaries in astronomy and astrology in Sanskrit, but has not produced any independent work. In these he says he was born in [Gangapura] in the Cola country, which can be indentfied with [Gangaikondacholapuram] (N.Lat 11o 13', E. Long 79o 30'), about 40 miles north of Tanjore. He gives its equinoltial shadow to be 2.4 angulas, which corresponds to N.Lat 11o 17', and its distance, east of Kharanagara to be 11 [Yojanas], which is 1.2o according to the [Aryabhata] measure. Kharanagara is said to be on the Ujjain meridian, as given by [Bhaskara] I in [Mahabhaskariya], ch.II. So, the east longitude comes to about 77o, but actually it is 70o 39'. Either the eleven [yojanas] given is a scribal error, or [Suryadevayajvan's] calculation of the number of [yojanas] is different. He says he was born in 1113 'Saka (1191 A.D.), and learnt astronomy from his maternal uncle [Suryadeva], whose protege he was. He was a devotee of Krishna, whose grace he invokes throughout. The following are his works: (1)The [Aryabhatiya-Bhasya], (2)Laghumanasa,(3) [Jatakapaddhati-vyakhya], a commentary on the astrological work, [Jatakapaddhati], of ['Sripati], (4) [Govindasvamibhasya vyakhya], a supercommentary on the Govindasvami-bhasya on the Mahabhaskariya], (5)A commentary on the [Yogayatra] of [Varahamihira], (6) Khandakhadyaka-vyakhya on the Khandakhadyaka of Brahmagupta. The last three works are now known only from reference.
Astronomy porper (next) appears in the Tamil region as a small part of a mainly astrological work dealing with mundane and electional astrology, by name [Cudamani Ullamudaiyan], the name appearing in verse 7. The name and time of the author is found in the last verse:[ ]
The name of the author is [Tirukkottinambi] son of '[Mamuniari]', he lived in [Pandamangalam], near [Uraiyur] in [Triuccirappalli]. The period mentiod is after 1100 'Saka. But the [Khanda[ for the moon giving c.1107 'Saka, and the [Parahita Khanda] of all planets c. 1167 'Saka shows that the work must be alter than 1245 A.D. (From this it can be inferred that the author was a junior contemporary of Suryadevayajvan). It says that the source of all its content is from a Sanskrit text, and its computation of eclipses is according to a Sanskrit work called [Jayantamala], of which manuscripts are yet to be discorered.
The meagre astronomical matter of [Cudamani Uttamudaiyan] consists of : (1) Days from Kali epoch using the 'Saka year reckoned in Solar years. The multiplier and divisior to get this gives 365-15 29 29 days which is less by about 2 [vinadis] compared with the value given by all[ Hindu Siddhantas]. Perhaps the muliplier given by -["------------------------"](verse 381) is ["-----------"]. The sun's motion in [rasis] are to be found by using monthly periods, and the motion within the month, by the true motion per day given roughly for each month. (2) The sixty year cycle and the division of each in to three parts are given. (3) A method to find the true moon using the two anomolistic cycles of 3031 and 248 days, together with the so-called [Vararuci-cakyas] giving the true anomaly for each day of the 248 days period, is given. No correction is given for the error in the two periods, with the result that the error will accumulate in course of time. (4) Haridatta's [Parahita] method is given to compute all bodies, i.e., the sun, moon, and star planets. There is a very small difference in the constants, from those used by Haridatta, but the 'Parahita correction used by later computers, is not used. (5) As mentioned already, there is a section devoted to eclipses, taken from an earlier Sanskrit work, [Jayantamala]. It is seen from the method for Days from Kali, given in this work, that the solar sidereal year, with the dates of the solar month, had already come to be used in the Tamil country for calenderical purposes. It is more advantageous than the luni-solar calendar, used everywhere in earlier times, and still used in all parts of India except Kerala. Tamil nadu, Bengal and Orissa. Its ease to get the Kali-days is obvious as against the complicated luni-solar method of using the tithi and lunar month. When did it come to be used? Haridatta in his [Parahita-ganita] uses only the luni-solar method,as also earlier perople like Bhaskara I. With the solar year is associated reckoning the 'Saka years and the 60 year cycle years, which are Jovian, in solar years. The cycle years have fallen back by now in the south by 12 years. From this we can reckon that the practice has originated with the Kollam era of 825 AD, which is a landmark in Kerala astronomical history. Perhaps the astronomers used it first, for its obvious advantages, and the laymen and civil administration fell in line. The origin of its use in inscriptions will be revealing.
The next work coming to view is the [Vakyakaranam] or [Vakyapancadhyayi], by [Sundararaja].
This is the one work that can really be called astronomical, though it is only a manual, using rought methods for ease of computation. It is in Sanskrit. It states that it follows the Bhaskariya of BhaskaraI mentioned above, and the [Parahita-ganita] of [Haridatta] for its methods and constants, but we can see that the [Parahita] corrections have also been used. From the subtractive days given for commencing computation it can be inferred that is date is near the end of the 13th century A.D. The author [Sundararaja] must have hailed from the region of [Kanchipuram] in Tamil Nadu, as can be inferred from his invoking the grace of [Varadaraja] of [Kanchi] in the first verse, and using words and phrases reminiscent of [Kanchi] and the [Cholas], as mnemonics of tabular values.
This is the basis for the so-called [Vakya] [almanacs] extensively used in Tamilnadu. It can be seen that the informants of Warren and Le Gentil, c. 1800, at Pondicherry, were using the methods and constants of this work for computational demonstration.
Since the true longitudes of bodies repeat in periods, short or long, as the case may be, the actual values of convenient segments of the periods are computed and given by groups of words or [vakyas] being used for numbers. Sicne the sun's apogee has no motion according to [Aryabhata's] system, the sun's true positions repeat in the year, and are easily computed. Since there are 9 anomolistic revolutions of the moon in 248 days, with an error of only 8', true anomalies for each day has been given as sufficiently accurate, and a correction given for each period of 248 days. In a period of 3,031 days of 110 revolutions, the error would be only 2' and in 12,372 days of 449 revolutions, it is taken as zero. Thus the error can be prevented from accumulating. Adding the mean moon at the beginning of the period to the true anomaly and corrections, the true moon is got. These 248 [vakyas] called [Candravakyas] or [Vararuci-vakyas], are said to have been first formed by an ancient astronomer of Kerala called Vararuci.
In the case of the fice planets, the true longitudes repeat when a number of synodic periods are also whole solar years, here too there being no motion of apogees as taaken. These are very long periods. But sufficient accuracy can be secured by using a smaller number of synodic revolutions, using corrections for the small error, which can be prevented from accumulating as in the case of the moon. These are the [mandala-vakyas] and [samudra-vakyas] of the planets. The explanations of their formation and use is found in Chapter II, while Chapter I is devoted to the sun, the moon, and Rahu (the nodes).
The third Chapter is devoted to matters depending on the solution of spherical triangles, like daylight, rising ecliptic point, time and shadow. The fourth chapter deals with eclipses, and the fifth with heliacal rising and setting as also the [Mahapatas]. Thus the astronomical matter given is practically full. The results are also sufficiently accurate. The much-spoken-of error in the [Vakya-almanacs] now-a-days is due to certain conventions followed to conform to the [Dhrama'sastras] (which is therefore not error at all) and the error in the astronomical constants used accumulating over the course of so many centuries now. [See the printed edition (loc.cit.) for details. Being well suited for almanac making, this or Tamil adaptations of this are used by computers.
The Sanskrit commentary mentioned gives some interesting details about the subsequent history of the [Vakyakarana] in the colophon ending the commentary. A king by name [Tipparaja] is mentioned here who can be identified with [Gopendra Tipparaya] of the [Saluva] dynasty known from his inscription of 1475 A.D. to have ruled the southern districts of the [Vijayanagar] empire, as a feudatory.
Tipparaja. An astronomical work of [Tipparaja] is mentioned in the abvoe mentioned colophon, bearing the name [Tippa-rajiyam]. He has written three works in astronomy, the [Tantraratna], a set of [Candra-vakyas], and [Uparagadarpana]. It is the [Tantraratna] that must have been referred to as the [Tipparajiyam]. Besides these, he has written a commentary called [Kamadhenu] on [Vamana's] [Vakyalankara-sutra-vrtti], and the [Taladipika], on the [Tala] branch of muscic. All are in Sanskrit.
The [Tantraratna] is a brief work, covering the whole field of astronomy. It follows the later [Suryasiddhanta] in its yuga elements and other constants. It is in eight chapters. The first chapter deals with the computation of the chief items of the Hindu almanac, [Vara], [Naksatra] of the sun and moon, [Tithi], [Yoga], [Karana] and [Tyajyam], following the method of the [Vakyakarana]. In the place of the [Bhupadi-vakyas] for the sun, it gives the [Yogyadi-vakyas] which are easier to use, and appear here, like [Goparaja-tanaya], [kathari-Saluva], [Sangita-rasa-bhavajna], [Ubearadityasamvardhita], [Camburaya-sthapaka], [Canura-malla], [Talajna], and [Kalyarapurendra]. The colophon contains the name [Saluva-Tipparaja]. Chapters I to VIII are a regular Tantra work, of course, following the [Surya-siddhanta] in its elements, methods and contents. But the work is only mediocre in merit.
The [Candravakyas]are expected to be used as an appendic to the first chapter taking the place of the so called [Vararucivakyas] used in the computationof the moon. But the [vakyas] go up to seconds, instead of stopping with minutes. At the end of the work there is some prose matter, in which an example to get Kali days is given. This is 16,74,709 days expired, Kali 4585=1484 A.D., the time of [Tipparaja] himself. His [Uparagadarpana], on eclipses, is available manuscript form.
Next, in an astrological work by name Vi (Bi) [me'svara Uttamudaiyan], a small section on astronomy appears. An alternative name given is [Jodidagrahacintamani]. The main matter is what is found in the [Cudamani Uttamudaiyan], i.e., mundane and electional astrology with a little horary astrology added. The author does not give his name, but in every verse he mentions Vi(Bhi) me'svara, the Lord of [Todukkadu] in [Tanjore] District, often invoking the grace of [Vime'svara's consort, Nahaimuhavalli. The date of the work given in verse 10 is Kali 4728, i.e., 1627 A.D. The subtractive given for beginning the moon's computation is 16,35,565 days (got by adding 248 and 3031)and 248 days. To bring the moon to true sunrise caused by the sun's equator of the centre, the change in daylight and the difference in longitude called [de'santara] (the reduction to the equator being omitted, as in the original [Vakyakarana itself), subtractive or additive minutes being given for every 8 days of each month. The whole correction is wrongly called [de'santara] correction by the commentator, though the actual work does not make this mistake. Since the average of all the corrections given is zero, we have to assume that either the [de'santara] itself (about -7' for Tanjore) is not given, or that a correction is given to teh mean moon, equal to 8'. This is the dawn of the [manyadi] correction to the moon which includes a correction to the mean moon of about 26', used by the informants of Gential and Warren, c. 1800 A.D., and later. upto this day. For finding the true sun with in the month, the [Yogyadivakyas] are given, appearing in this work for the first time instead of the [Bhupadivakyas] of the [Vakyakarana], which are more difficult to use. Here too the commentary makes mistakes in teh instructions to add or subtract, not to speak of the printing mistakes of the constants.
To compute the five planets, the subtractive to begin work is given as 1368 'Saka. Very rough values for the mean motions per annum are given, showing that the author intended them to be used for the author's own lifetime. But these values varry the [Parahita] corrections used by the [Vakyakarana]. To correct the mean planets for the equation of the centre and equation of conjunction, values are given for each [rasi], a rough approximation instead of the intervals of [3 3/4o] as in the [Parahita-vakyas] of Haridatta, repeated in the [Cudamani Uttamudaiyan].
During the last decades of the 19th century, several such astrological-cum-astronomical works appeared for the use of almanac makers. One is the [Muruga-'Sekharam], which gives the [Vakyakarana] method for the sun and the moon and the corrected Parahita method for all. It mentions how to use different calendars for use by Muslims and others. It includes also [Dharma'sastra] matter to determine dates for offerings to the manes, [Vratas], fasts, feasts, etc. It is by one [Muruhaiya Josyar], and reprinted by Ratnanaicker and Sons in 1932.
During the same period, a work called [Jodidagrahacintamnni], popularly known as [Varsadinul], appeared, for the same purpose. It is practically the [Vime'svara Uttamudaiyan] with some ramifications of the astrological portion.
One [Swami Iyengar] of [Karaiyur] issued a [Parahita Ganitam] in Tamil, with his own corrections, mostly following the [Vakyakaranam] constants and a subtractvie from Kali days of 16,83,112 days, which is equal to eight times the sub-yuga used by Haridatta, etc. 2,10,389 days, the time being 1507 A.D. Why it uses this subtractive instead of a larger one, by which it could have obviated labour, is a mystery. It also gives methods to find day-time and ascensional difference for different latitudes.
A very important work c. 1880 is the [Jotisaganitasastam] of [Munampannai Krsna Josyar of Nanguneri] (Tirunelveli District). It is in Tamil and is extensive used by [Vakya] almanac makers, many of whom own copies it. It follows the [Vakyakarana], but uses the [manyadi] to bring the moon to true sunrise, with a [bija]. The author's knowledge of astronomy is good, and he brings it to bearon his work. It is in five parts: (1) The sun, moon and RAhu; (2) The fice Star-planets; (3) Eclipses; (4) Daylight, Ascension etc., (5) Miscellaneous matters. For eclipses he gives different ancient methods and [bija] corrections to secure tolerable accuracy. He also gives rules to determine dates for offerings to the manes and Vratas.
IV. Modern Times
We now come to out own century. A desire to know the correct positions of planets,for the sake of predictions, is evinced by the educated. A new type of almanac, called [Drgganita], whose calculation is based on modern Nautical almanacs and ephemerides is becoming popular. One such almanac-maker, C.G. Rajan, a Tahsildar in the Chiglepet district, compliled tables based, fairly accurate positions of planets can be found for any day from 3000 B.C. to 3000 A.D., which may be used by astrologers and research scholars.
Rajan has named the work [raja-Jyotisa-ganitam]. It is in English, and there is also a Tamil translation by himself. It was published in 1935. In his explanation and discussion, he exhibits good knowledge and gransp of the subject. In 1959, he published three booklets for the benefit of [Vakya-almanac-makers, based on teh [Vakya-karana]one, on the sun, moon and Rahu, one ont he computation of the five star planets, and one on calculating eclipses, using earlier cycles. He also gave the manner of computing the elements, in the usual method. In 1961, he published a booklet on the claculation of the solar eclipse, computing and using modern elements. Till he died a few years ago, he was preparing the [Rastriya Panchang in Tamil], for the Government of India.
There was also one L. Narayana Rao, a native of Tanjore and a retired Central Government Officer, who was publishing a [Siddhanta Panchangam], till he died recently. He has collected an dpublished the planetary ephemerides for various groups of years from 1800 A.D. to 1950 A.D. Being a master of modern astronomical calculations as well, he has shown how the set of ephemerides given can be used for any time earlier or later outside the given periods, provided the time is not too far away. That is , he has shown how the sets of ephemerides can be used as perpetually repeating tables like the [Candra and Samudra-vakyas] fo the [Vakya-karanam]. If he had given longer periods to prevent the accumualtion of the inevitable small errors at the end of each given period, it would have been useful to research workers desiring to compute the correct positions of planets at very early times. Also, he could have minimised the labour of reducing the given positions to the times required earlier or later, provided they are not too far away, by giving the instruction for changing the equation of the centre by differentiation. He has also given some tables useful for astrologers.
Lastly, the author of the present paper too has made some modest contributions. He has translated the [Vedanga-Jyotisa] with an Introduction. He has also translated the [Vakyakarana] in Tamil, with elaborate notes and worked examples. In the notes he has pointed out the merits and defects of the work, with modern astronomy. It is being used by almanac-computers and some of his friends.
He thought it would be good if, instead of the various instructions given in his notes to modernize the [Vakya-karana] results, he added two appendices to his tanslation, one to compute the correct positions of planets, and the other to give the correct circumstances of eclipses. The former he put in the [Vakyakarana garb], just for the pleasure of it, though the planning and computation of the tabular values demanded a lot of ingenuity and enormous labour. In the case of the moon he has taken into account all the equations necessary for tolerable accuracy. The latter is a compendium in Tamil of a larger work he has writen in English. He finished these two works by 1953 and 1956. They are still in manuscript form.
He has revised his old work (in English) on elcipses, making a better arrangement of the matter and the tables more easy to use. Its merit is that it is complete in itself, where the elements used in computation, normally taken from the almanac themselves, are computed by himself and given. To do it easily, he has devised methods to combine the large number of the respective equations and hss given them in a smaller number of tables. He has given three methods of computing the circumstances, viz., the nonagesimal method used by teh earlier astronomers, the right ascension declination co-ordinates method, and [Bessel's] methods, explaining all of them fully.
In 1957, he critically edited the [Mahabhaskariyam] of BhaskaraI with the commentary of Govindasvamin and a super-commentary by [Parame'svara], for the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Chepauk, Madras. In 1962 he brought out critical edition of the [Vakyakarana], with commentary jointly with K.V.Sarma.
In 1962, he began the preparation of a critical edition of the [Pancasiddhantika] with an elaborate Sanskrit commentary and worked examples and an English translation of both the text and the commentary. He has also prepared a bookon the theory and practive of modern astronomy, with tables and some basic mathematics and otehr matters useful to astronomers. This too remains in manuscript form.
THE AGE OF 'SANKARA
1. A REVIEW OF THE AGE OF SANKARA
by T.S. Narayana Sastry (TSNS)*
The Age of Sankara was first published in 1916, and a second edition has come out omitting certain parts of the Appendix. One of the important parts omitted is the ''Sakakala or 'Saka era', treating about the 'Saka era mentioned as No. VI of the eras listed on page 22.
Thsi work gives an interesing account of the life of the famous [Adi-'Sankaracarya], detailing the various incidents of his life, in the manner of a historical fiction. [Vamar'sa], a Sanskrit work on the same subject, written in 1898 by [Rajaraje'svara] ['Sankaracarya] ['Svami] of the [Dwaraka Mutt], has shown the author this method of treatment, together with many other things. The author says that the date of 'Sankara is from 509 B.C. to 477 B.C. To see such an early date determined for 'Sankara must be very pleasing to Hindus in general, and teh [Advaitins] in particular. But when historians and research scholars determine from internal and external evidences that ['Sankara] could have lived only several centuries after this time, and it might be even more than a thousand years later, we have to accept it as true, because the evidences put forth by the author for his date are, I am afraid, untenable.
I shall set out the true position first. Al the Mutts established by 'Sankara have constructed their [Parampara]('line of succession') from tradition and inadequate records, long after they were first founded, after they gained worldly importance, and felt the need for an uninterrupter pedigree from 'Sankara downwards. There were several [Vikramaditya-s] in whose names records dated in [Vikramabda] are found, confusing them with the well-known Vikrama Era of 58 B.C., and this has led to several contradictions. The line of succession may be expected to be correct for a few pontiffs before the attempt at reconstruction was made, when memory would have been fresh. Generally speaking, uncertainty would increase as we go further up. The [Sringeri Mutt], having had connections with the [Vijayanagar] and later empires and had become famous from the 13th and 14th century onwards, it sline can be expected to be the most authentic. But mistaking 'Sankara to have lived in the first century B.C., owing to the confusion in the [Vikramaditya] names, has resulted in giving 800 years to 'Sankara's successor [Sure'svaracarya], to connect him with the next in succession in that line, beginning from whom the succession has been quite authentic. If ['Sankara] is taken to have lived in the 8th century A.D., or a little earlier or later, on which there is an almost consensus of opinion among historians, not only will all discrepancies be resolved, but it will also fit in with the internal evidence of 'Sankara having known [Dinnaga], [Bhartrhari], [Dharmakirti] and [Kumarila], and having condemned the [Vijnana] and ['Sunyavada-s] of the Buddhists and several Jain tenets of later growth.
Like the line of succession of 'Sankara, the writing of his history too must have been attempted long after he had lived, after the desire to write it had cropped up in peoples' minds. Therefore, some of the incidents mentioned therein may be authentic, but others that are impossible or seem improbable to the fair-minded historian, might not be true, and are the product of the poet's [Kavya-style] of writing, a mixture of fancy and fact. That 'Sankara was born on a [Vai'sakha-'suddha-pancami] must be true, and that the birth-star was [Ardra] may also be true. But the planetary combinations and auspicious birth-times given variously by various authors must have been drawn from their imagination, fancying that such a great man must have been born under such a combination.
But one thing we can say. The ['Sankaradigvijaya], popularly known as [Madhaviya-'Sankaravijaya], written by [Vira Vasanta-Madhava], better known as [Madhava-mantrin], of [Angirasa gotra], minister of Immadi Bukka II, in the early 15th century, and publised long ago with the two commentaries [Dindima] and [Advaitarajyalaksmi] and referred to even by teh [Susama] as [Sanksepa-'Sankara-vijaya], being the most ancient extant text on 'Sankara], may taken to be the most authentic, saving the inevitable [mahakavya] style.
This work mentions a prior work, [Pracina-'Sankara-vijaya], of which this is a compendium, but that work does not seem to be available now, abotu which we shall see later. some Sankara Mutts have caused to be written or patronised several 'Sankara-vijaya-s, literary works and [Guru-parampara-s] to establish each its own importance and, in some cases, when disputes arose about property or jurisdiction, and have even concocted new evidence like copper-plate inscriptions etc.
In thus concocting evidence, it is patent that contenders entering in recent times have certain advantages. They can use the better knowledge of history and science to make more plausible concoctions, and even hold up the earlier mistakes of their adversaries to ridicule. But if truth will triumph, the very excessive greed of these concoctors will expose them; the very knowledge that theyuse, being insufficient to cover them up, willexpose them. The work which we are reviewing serves as a good example of what I am saying.
The author of the work reviewed here, T.S. Narayana Sastri, asserts in this work that 'Sankara was born in 509 B.C. corresponding to Kali 2593, in the year Nandana, on [Vai'sakha-'suddha-pancami], Punarvasu, Sunday, in [Karkataka-lagna]. The evidence he adducess for this can be classified under four heads:
1. Bits of a [Brhat-'Sankaravijaya (BSV) attributed to the famous [Citsukhacarya], quoted in the commentary called [Susama] (alleged to be by one Atmabodhendraa pontiff of the Kumbakonam Mutt), on the [Guru-ratna-malika], giving the line of succession of the [Mutt], alleged to be written by the famous [Sada'siva] Brahmendra, together with a [Punya'slokamanjari] also alleged to be written by a pontiff of the same Nutt.
2. Bits of a [Pracina-'Sankarajaya] (PSJ) attributed to the famous [Anandagiri], alleged to be the seventh pontiff of the Mutt, belonging to the second century A.D.
Even according to the author, the [Brhat-'Sankara-vihaya] and the [Pracina-'Sankarajaya] are not extant now but for the bits quoted in the [Susama]. Of these two, regarding the former, only the name [Citsukha] is true as the author of the famous [Citsukhiyam]. There is no evidence for the story that he was born 'Sankara's oen village, had been his mate as a boy, lived always with him and long after his death, knew every detail of his life, became a pontiff of the Mutt and wrote the [Brihat-'Sankaravijaya]. All this is known only to the [Gurugranthamalika-Susma-Punya'slokamanjari] group, and to nodody else. These have concocted, for the Mutt, a line of succession with precise dates of accession and death, from 'Sankara downwards, using the names of authors of famous advaitic and other works, who have been established by research scholars to have lived in quite other times and at other places.
As for [Anandagiri], the name is well known as the writer of the gloss on 'Sankara's] works. [Pracina-'Sankara-jaya] may also be taken as having existed, if [Madhava] had meant by the word the name of a prior work instead of an earlier ['Sankaravijaya] in general. But there is no evidence for believing that [Anandagiri] wrote the work, or that he was the seventh pontiff of the line, and lived in teh second century, excepting the [Gururatnamalika-Susama-Punya'slokamanjari] set, written solely for the glorification of the Mutt. If what TSNS says about the [Brhat-'Sankaravijaya] and [Pracina-'Sankarajaya] were true, then they would be the strongest eveidence for 'Sankara's life history.
In the BSV all incidents are given in a [Yudhisthira] 'Saka (YS), 'Sankara's birth-date being given as 2631 of the era, and in [Anandagiri's] PSJ in the Kali era, the birth year being given as 2593. This Ys itself, according to TSNS, began in 3140 B.C., (sometimes he says it is 3141 and sometimes 3139, according to his convenience), which date itself he has invented for his own purpose, no one else having mentioned it before as "beginning from the first coronation of Yudhisthira at Indraprastha." But the name itself is well-known and used by teh Jains as beginning from 648 Kali. But the author asserts that the Hindus all use his YS of 3140 B.C. He is not speaking the truth here. While his YS is not used by anybody else, there are two other YS which have been in use among Hindus. The well-known [Jyotirvidabharana], in its list of eras current in Kaliyuga, says that the YS began with the Kaliyuga, in 3102 B.C., and ended with the Vikrama Era beginning in 58 B.C., and ended in 78 A.D., when the 'Saka Era proper, later known as the 'Salivahana 'Saka, began. Again, [Varahamihira] in his [Brhat-samhita], in the context of the [Saptarsi-cara], says that the era of [Yudhisthira's] reign began 2526 years before the 'Saka ERa of 78 A.D.:
[sad-dvika-panca-dvi-yutah (2526)
'Sakakalas tasya rajyasya
The years of the [Saptarsi-cara], omitting the centuries, and called the [Laukika Era], was current in Kashmir and the near by Himalayan regions. It is thsi that is used by Kalhana in his [Rajataranginin]. If is this also taken as YS, sicne it began with Yudhishthira, we have it that all Hindus have been using these two, and none else was known. When this is the truth, TSNS asserts on page 22, SEc.V, that his concocted YS of 3140 B.C. was the one used by all the Hindus. I shall explaing why he was constrained to invent this, when dealing later with the [Sudhanva] copper plate. For the present we shall accept what he says and proceed.
The [Gururatnamalika] and the [Susama] with the quoted portions of BSV and [Anandagiri], and the [Punya 'slokamanjari], all state that 'Sankara was born in Kali 2593 (the author's Y.S. of 2631) on [Vai'sakha-'suddha pancami, Karkataka-lagna], with the five heavenly bodies, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn in exaltation (ucca), as shown in the following birth chart I, as given on page 243 and also 288 by the author.
Chart I (given) Chart II (actual)
Venus Sun Mercury Moon Saturn Sun Mercury Moon
Venus
Jupiter
Lagna
Rasi Rasi
Mars
Saturn Mars Jupiter
But actually on that date the positions were as in Chart II. Note how far away are the four planets Jupiters, Saturn, Mars and Venus from the exaltation positions given by the author. The differences are so great that they cannot be accounted for by the difference in the [Siddhantas] used, or mistakes in them. Could the great [Citsukha], alleged to be a contemporary, close friend and later a successor, have given that chart even by mistake, or [Anandagiri], who is alleged to have followed in the line close after? As the line of succession and dates of accession have been constructed in the :[Punya'sloka-manjari] and [Sisama] exactly following this date as origin, and as the line can neither be contracted nor expanded in time, giving as they do specific dates for each succession, they must all be equally unreliable, as also the existence of these two ['Sankaravijaya-s], since they exist only in the quotations in these works. It is also obvious that works like the spurious [Vyasacaliyam] quoted by the author on p. 247, giving for ['Sankara's] borth the same year 2593 [Kali], Nandana], with the same five-planet exaltation, and for his death 2625 [Kali], [Raktaksa] in p. 230 must be considered as unreliable as the above works.
The probable genesis of these works is the publication of the [Vimar'sa] in 1898, by the said [Swamiji] of the [Dwaraka Mutt] with a copper-plate inscription in support of ['Sankara's] date, alleged to have been issued by a contemporary king, [Sudhanva], to ['Sankara] himself, and said to have been preserved in the Mutt. (we shall examine the genuineness of this [plate later.) In it the date of issue of the plate is given as 2663 YS, the wording showing that ['Sankara] was alive at that time. Our author resolved to use this for his purpose. Even if YS 2663 is the last year of ['Sankara's] life-span of thirty-two years accepted by all, he should have been born not earlier than 2631 Y.S. If this YS is taken as the accepted YS of [Jyotirvidabharana], ['Sankara's] birth must fall just after 2631 Kali, since both eras are synochronous. The author also wanted to give a birth-date for ['Sankara], with five planets exalted, for the sake of plausibility, and his computers fixed a date in 2593 Kali (Jyotirvid. Y.S. 2593) thinking that date answered to the specification, and no other date nearby. (This is the real meaning underlying the author's statement on page 245 to the effect, " We have ascertained from two of the greatest astrologers of South India that this particular combination of the planetary bodies did actually occur on ['Vai'sakha] (Mesa) ['Sukla Pancami] of the year Nandana in 2593 of the [Kaliyuga], corresponding to 509 B.C."). But since this is too low down from YS 2631, which is lowest limit agreeing with the date of the copper-plate mentioned above, the author had to invent a YS beginning 38 years earlier, with the first coronation of [Yudhisthira] in 3140 B.C. according to him, and asserting without an iota of truth that was the only YS known to the Hindus. But fortunately for truth, the concocters have gone wrong, and the author's edifice built upon their date has collapsed, as we have already mentioned.
Another mistake of the concoctors that exposes them is giving Nandana as the year of birth in both the ['Sankara-vijayas], while actually it must be [Dhata] for 509 B.C. according to the astronomical [samhitas] and [Siddhantas]. They have got it by counting backwards one year of the Jovian cycle for each solar year and arriving at Nandana for 2593 Kali, on the mistaken practice now current in the extreme south of India, since the solar calendar was adopted about a thousand and one hundred year back, (the rest of India following the correct procedure), as evidenced by the twelve-year advance there in the Jovian year from what is given in the South. (For details see the Bulletin of the Institute of Traditional Cultures, October 1967, Part I. Sect. ii, p.45). The reason given for the lagging behind in the South, and advance elsewhere in the Introductions to some Tamil [Pancangas] is mere bluff, not supported either by the astronomical works or the Dharma ['sastras].
Further, historians and scholars agree that at such an eargly age as 509 B.C. weekdays like Sunday, names of [rasis] like [Mesa], ideas like exaltation, and giving numbers in [bhutasankhya] were not in use among Indians. But these are freely used inthe said quoted portions. Mistakes in the use of the [bhutasankya] indicate that novices not conversant with it (like the people of the South accustomed to using mostly the Ka-ta-pa-ya-di-sankhya) are handling it . They are unaware that there is practice governing its use. [Adhva[ for 6, [vara] for 7, ['sastra] for 6, and [anga] for 4 are not used in the [bhutasankhya]. While the first three are simply not in use, the last one, [anga], used for 6 by custom, cannot be used for 4, since the resulting ambiguity would play havoc with the astronomical constants. Thus too the concoctors stand exposed.
Against the argument of anachronism given in the last paragraph, the author may say that the historians have all gone wrong in dating the past events, that actually the early periods like the rise and fall of the [Magadha kingdom] etc., should be put backby about 700 years, and if done so what they fix for the second century A.D. will be possible for 509 B.C. (sometimes he makes it 575 B.C. and sometimes even 550 B.C. according to his convenience), and that the early records like the [Aihole] Inscription and astronomers from [Varahamihira] to [Bhaskaracarya], mean only this 'Saka when they mention it. I have exposed the baselessness of his arguments in detail in a paper on the subject (see above pp.255-87).
Another thing has got to be mentioned. In describing the planetary postions in verse 12, on page 273, we find the words, "¹ÉbÚ÷ʴɶÉä ¶ÉiÉEäò, ¸ÉÒ¨Étι]õ®ú¶ÉEòºªÉ ´Éè". This means that the birth was in the 26th century of the YS and the date would have to be taken as 2531 YS (equal to 609 B..) and not 2631 YS. But this year cannot be taken, for the following reasons: Mars cannot be in exaltation, being nearly four [ra'sis] away. This wil also go against the year of death given in the same work as 2663 YS and Kali 2593 for birth, and the cycle year Nandana given for it, as also the [Gurugranthamalika-Susama-Punya'slokamanjari] group, giving definite dates beginning from 2593 Kali alone. This would also contradict the concocted [Jinavijaya] agreement -(we sahll be dealing with this presently)- and also the evidence of the [Sudhanva] plate. Another thing may also be added. In the quoted verses, there is a confusion that [Saugatas] and [Jainas] are synonymous. Do the concoctors mean that [Citsukha] and [Anandagiri] did not know that Jainas are different from [Saugatas], viz., Buddhists?
Another important point: On page 227 there is an alleged quotation from the PSJ. descibing ['Sankara's] death, saying that in Kali 2625, ['Sankara] placed [sure'svara] on the [Pitha] renowned as [Kamakoti] to take care of [Saravajna], and leaving his body before [Kamaksi] attained [moksa]:
Eò±ªÉ¤nù¸´É ¶ÉÉäIÉhÉÉv´ÉxɪÉxÉè& ºÉiEòɨÉEòÉäÊ]õ|ÉlÉä
{ÉÒ`äö xªÉºªÉ ºÉÖ®äú¸´É®Æú ºÉ¨ÉÊ´ÉiÉÖÆ ºÉ´ÉÇYɺÉÆYÉÆ ¨ÉÖÊxɨÉÂ*
EòɨÉÉIªÉɺºÉÊ´ÉvÉä ºÉ VÉÉiÉÖ ÊxÉʴɶÉzÉÖx¨ÉHò±ÉÉäEòº{ÉÞ½þ&
näù½Æþ º´ÉÆ ´ªÉ{ɽþÉªÉ näùZɺÉÖMɨÉÆ vÉÉ¨É |É{Éänäù {É®ú¨ÉÂ**
This is an anachronism because the [Kamaksi] cult itself did not develop till after several centuries A.D. and archaeologists and historians agree that the [Kamaksi] temple itself arose on the ruins of the Jain and Buddhist temples situated in the same place, with many of the old [murtis] transformed into the present ones, (as seen from the old vestiges still visible), and the worship of [Kamaksi] commenced about the ninth or tenth century A.D., the temple itself being later still. When such is the case, how could there be a Math called the [Kamakoti Pitha] there or the mention of [Kamaksi] in the 5th century B.C.? (For details see tha booklet, Devi Kamakshi) in [Kanchi-A histrorical study by K.R. Venkataraman, Second edition, 1973). Thus we see the author's edifice collpsing at every line of examination.
III. A corroborative evidence advanced by the author is an alleged extract from a work called [Jivavijaya], apparently written for the glorigication of Jina, i.e., [Vardhamana Mahavira], the 24th [Tirthankara] and founder of the Jain sect. It may be mentioned even at the outset that such a work is not found in the [Jinaratnako'sa] a bibilography of known Jain works, nor in [Aufrecht's] [Catalogus Catalogorum]. There is a work of this name in the [Madras University's New Catalogus Catalogorum], of Sanskrit works, but it deals only with the tenets of the Jain sect and nothing more. The author must have invented the name and concocted the quotations as there-from, thinking that evidence from a rival faith's work would be more convincing. On p. 150, he himself says that he has no firsthand knowledge of this evidence, but saw it mentioned in an issue of the journal ['Sankrita Chandrika'] of one Appa Sastri of Kolhapur that 'Sankara was born when [Kumarilabhatta] was forty-eight years of age, and so he wrote to Appa Sastri for authority and that Appa Sastri sent him by post the verses quoted by the author, saying they were from the [Jinavijaya]. We have only to believe the author's words for this. Be it so. But why should he give references under the verses (like "vide p.6,Sanskrita Chandrika etc.") as if these verses are taken from the journal itself? Further, an examination of the verses would show that the verses have been written by a person having very little knowledge, especially of Sanskrit. For example, but for the only statement that [Kumarila] was defeated in argument (by Jina himself!!) the gist of the verses glorifies [Kumarila], against the ostensible purpose of the work. What is the relevance of ['Sankara's] year of death as [Raktaksa] being given in this work, where even giving [Kumarila's] full life will be irrelevant? In the context of 'Sankara meeting [Kumarila], a verse (as translated by the author himself) says "when Sankara was fifteen years of age, Siva met [Bhattacharya Kumarila"]. Did the Jains too consider [Sankara] as an incarnation of ['Siva]? Further,the wording is such that ['Sankara] and ['Siva] in the sentence are different persons. In mentioning Sudhanvan killing Jains, the verse says ÊVÉ (?VÉè)xÉÉxÉÉÆ ªÉÉäxÉ ºÉvÉÚxÉÉÆ SÉGäò EònùxɨÉnù¦ÉÖiɨÉÂ*, the word +nÂù¦ÉÖiɨÉ in the verse indicating that the narrator mentions the fact with exultation. Would a Jain speak like this ? Here, too, in giving [Bhutasankhya], words not current then are used. For 'two' the author seems to be afraid of using aksi and always uses the expression [maryaksau] as if there would be some doubt in the numer if [martya] is not used together. The same fear, bespeaking a modern novice of South India is seen in giving the instruction [vamamelanat], again and again, as if otherwise the numbers would be used in the order he is accustomed to, beginning from the highest value, proceeding to lowere and lower. Here, too, is the same mistake, in getting the Jovian cycle-year [Raktaksa] as ['Sankara's] year of death. The mistaking of [Saugata] for Jain is also found, all pointing to the same person or group as concoctors. Again, while the ['Sankaravijayas] in general give as the opponents of [Kumarila], the [Bauddhas] with whom he lived incognito, learnt their ['Sastras] and ultimately vanquished them, why should the Jains take their place here? Here is the hand of the Dwaraka Math, latterly obsessed with teh Jains predominant in the region around it. The Sudhanva plate also exhibits this obsession and is perhaps the genesis of the substitution of the Jains for the Buddhists. In conclusion, since the alleged birth-date by the Jain reckoning also exactly coincides with the discredited 509 B.C., it is evident that the former has been concocted simply for corroboration with the latter.
IV. We shall noe take up for scrutiny the evidence of the Sudhanva copper plate inscription, given on pp. 220-21. For a detailed study, I refer the reader to the speech, exhibiting deep critical acumen, delivered by Prof. V. Venkatachalam, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Vikram University, Ujjain, at the Seminar held at Sringeri, on the occasion of the Kumbhabhishekam renovating the [Adhisthana] of [Sure'svara] on May 10, 1970, and printed in teh Commemoration Volume, Seminar Section, pp. 86-105, under the title 'The Sudhanva copper-plate : A dispassionate re-appraisal'. I shall give the substance alone here, adding my own comments thereon.
(1) In 1898 A.D. the then ['Sankaracarya] of the Dwaraka Math published a Sanskrit work by name [Vimar'sa] in which there was a copy in modern Devanagari of an alleged copper-plate inscription issued by King Sudhavan to 'Sankara in YS 2663. If genuine, the original should have been in teh pre-Asokan [Brahmi] script, examining which we can ascertaing its genuineness. But it is not available at the Math noe for examination. They say that it had been submitted as an exhibit in a Court of Law for evidence in a dispute, and was not taken back. It is not likely that they would have failed to get back such an important document undless it was a fake, and, so, was nto claimed back, for fear of exposure by historians.
(2) Its language is different from that of c. 500 B.C. when it was alleged to have been issued, and contains modern provicialsms current in the Gujarat region. For example, the word [satta] is used int eh sense of power or suzerainty.
(3) The word ['Saka] is used in the sensa of era. Thsi sense originated from the word ['Sakabda] meaning the to indicate the era named after the ['Sakas', and later extended by a sematic chage to indicate an era in general, like the word[-----------------] in Tamil, first meaning an oul expressed from sesamum, (------), and later used for any oil, so that we have words like (--------)etc. (Even if the author's plea for an older 'Saka referred to already be accepted, a hundred years is too short a period for such a generalisation to happen.)
(4) The date if issue of the plate is given as YS 2663. Whether there was such an era current at that period or not, whether this plate is a fake or not, the [Swamiji] of the Math that published it in his book and used it for his Life of Sankara has taken the YS to mean the well-known one given in the [Jyotirvidabharana], beginning with Kali 3102 B.C. and dates the events of 'sankara's life and the accession of the subsequent pontiffs. This can be seen from the synchronism in the date of composition given by him at the end of the [Vimar'sa]"¸ÉÒ¨ÉSUÆôEò®ú-¦ÉMÉ´Éi{ÉÚV{ÉÚVªÉ{ÉÉnùÉSÉɪÉÉÇhÉÉÆ +´ÉiÉÉ®ú¶ÉEòɤnùÉ& {ÉÉè¹É¶ÉÖC±É{ÉÚÌhɨÉɪÉÉÆ........." This gives 'sankara's year of birth as 414 years before the Vikrama Era of 58 B.C. i.e. as 472 B.C. Even if the plate had been issued in the last year of Sankara's life, the birth year in YS should be 2631, i.e. the YS began in 3102 B.C., i.e., with Kali. Now, out author says that 'Sankara was born in 509 B.C., 37 years earlier than 472 B.C. which we get by the YS of the [Jyotirvidabharana] used in the [Vimar'sa]. It is to make up for this that the author has invented his YS beginning 37 years earlier, in 3140-39 B.C. (about which we have spoken already).
(5) We shall now take up the contents of the plate for scrutiny.
(a) The only original authority for the exi9stence and content of the plate is its publication in the [Vimar'sa]. But in taking it and printing it in his work (p.222) the author has silently changed the words "Ê´É·É°ü{ÉÉ{É®úxÉɨÉ-ºÉÖ®úÉä·É®úÉSÉɪÉÉÈ·É" into "¨Éhb÷xÉʨɸÉÉ{É®úxÉɨÉvÉäªÉ-ºÉÖ®äú·É®úÉSÉɪÉÉÇ·É" for his own purpose. This is trick to appropriate for the Kumbakonam Math the [Sure'sveracarya], whom the Dwaraka Math claims for itself, and who was really in the Srigeri Math as evidenced by his ancient [Adhisthana] (sacred tomb) there, for whcih the renovation Kumbhabhishekam ceremony was performed in 1970.
(b) Sudhanva states in teh plate that Totaka was the least in knowledge among the four disciples, and therefore 'Sankara appointed him to [Jyotirmatha] in the north where would not be many controversialists to meet, and that [Sure'svara] was the greatest in knowledge and was appointed to the Dwaraka Math in the west, where there would be the greatest need to dispute with opponents. If Sudhanvan had this estimate of Totaka, would he mention it to 'Sankara himself, and, even if 'Sankara had estimated the ability of his pupils like this, would he have confided this to sudhavan, and even then would Sudhanvan mention this in a copper plate issued to him ?
Such is the credibility of the plate, and out author Narayana Sastry gives gives this as an important piece of evidence for his date of 'Sankara. I doubt if he himself believed it to be genuine, because his mind and that of the Dwaraka 'Sankaracarya have worked on the same lines, and he has perpetrated all the tricks that the other has done. Both have fictitiously related most of ['Sankara's] peoms with the events of his life. Both have stated that biographers have confused the later pontiffs of the same name with the original 'Sankara and mixed up the events of their lives, and both give authorities from the non-existent and concocted works. While the [Swamiji] creates a [Brhadrajataranginin] to give as authority, our author creates a [Jinavijaya] to support the created [Brihat 'Sankaravijaya] and [Pracina-'Sankaravijaya].
I must also mention here a concoction named [Kaliyugaraja-vrttanta], extensively used by the author Narayana Sastry, in the first editionm, the name being chosen with the intention of creating in the minds of the readers the impression that it has been taken from the [Bhavisya Purana], [Uttarakhanda]. (The authoritativeness of even this Bhavisya, Uttara can be seen from the fact that it contains the story of the Bible from Adam and Eve to Jesus Christ, the story of Mohamed and Islam and the history of Muslim India till Shah Alam, and the fact that the personage occurring in these stories are declared to be the good and bad kings and demons of the [Dvapara] and earlier yugas that have re-incarnated themselves as the godd and bad kings and tyrants and villains in the Kaliyuga). We can guess what this means when all attempts by research scholars to trace it to any source, puranic or otherwise, have failed.
To continue, both Narayana Sastry and the Swamiji of the Dwaraka Math have tried to appropriate for their own Math famous writers of advaitic and other works, though they belong to different places and times. But even as teh 'perfect crime' was out, the author's false claims stand exposed by his own imperfect knowledge and trying to be too clever.
Besides what we have discussed in detail, there are sundry other points mentioned by the author that cannot be replied to in detail in this article, for fear of being made too long for a review. The reader is referred chiefly to the following work to get his doubts cleared: [The Kumbakonam Mutt and the Truth about it], Parts I and II, (published 1965), by R.Krishnaswami Aiyar, M.A., B.L., Advocate, Trirunelveli (latterly known as Gnanananda Bharathi Swamigal) and Sri (now late) K.R.Venkataraman, Redt. Director of Public Instruction and Historical Records Officer, Pudukkottai, respectively.
But what is the correct age of 'Sankara ? I shall discuss this in the next paper.
THE AGE OF 'SANKARA: II
The genuine ['Sankaravijayas] extant are all late works, as we have stated in the previous paper, and some of them have given dates which are only guesses from traditional stories, and are found mostly untrustworthy on examination. The [Madhaviya-'Sankaravijaya] is silent on the point of 'Sankara's date of birth, but gives a planetary combination that can give a series of dates at intervals of about 300 or 400 years. Interal evidence from the ['Sankaravijaya] of [Anantanandagiri] discredited by T.S.Narayana Sastrya, as we have already referred to, points to a date later than even [Ramanuja] and Madhva, and obviously absurd.
But there is plenty of internal evidence and some external evidence also, to show that ['Sankara] must have been born not earlier than the last part of the 7th century A.D. and not later than the first few years of the 9th century, on which point there is an almost consensus of opinion among historians and scholars of Indian philosophy.
['Sankara's] writings show that he is well acquainted with teh [Puranas] in their modern from, which were redacted during the Gupta period. He is said to have studied the [Sutasamhita] several times before he wrote his [Bhasyas and the Sutasamhita] forms part of [Skanda], one of the latest of the Puranas. He is also known to have purified and propagated the six Indian cults (Sanmatasthapanacarya) that were fully shaped only after several centuries A.D. In the [Mahayana] form of Buddhism, the two schools of [Vijnanavadins] and ['Sunyavadins] were perfected during the period from the 4th to the end of the 7th century A.D. and 'Sankara discusses and refutes them in his [Brahmasutra-bhasya], II. 2. 18-36. His direct pupil [Padmapada] refers to this in his [Pancapadika] thus:
"+iÉ& ºÉ B´É ¨ÉɽþɪÉÉÊxÉEò& {ÉIÉ& ºÉ¨ÉÉʽþiÉ&"
In II. 2.28, 'Sankara quotes the first half of a [Karika] of [Dinnaga], pupil of Vasubandu, from his [Alambanapariksa]:
ªÉnùxiÉYÉèªÉ°ü{ÉÆ iÉiÉ ¤Éʽþ´Éænù´É¦ÉɺÉiÉä*
ºÉÉä%lÉæ%Ê´ÉYÉÉ°ü{Éi´ÉÉiÉ xÉ iÉi|ÉiªÉªÉiÉÉ%Ê{É SÉ **
It is known that [Dinnaga] lived in the 5th century A.D.
[Sure'svara], another direct pupil of ['Sankara], mentions the Bauddha Naiyayika Dharmakirti, by name, in his [Brhadaranyaka-varttika]:
Êjɹ´Éä´É i´ÉÊ´ÉxÉɦÉÉ´ÉÉÊnùÊiÉ ªÉnÂù vɨÉÇEòÒÌiÉxÉÉ*
|ÉiªÉYÉÉʪÉ, |ÉÊiÉYÉäªÉÆ ½þÒªÉäiÉɺÉÉè xÉ ºÉƶɪÉ&**
He also quotes him:
+ʦÉzÉÉä%Ê{É Ê½þ ¤ÉÖuùªÉÉi¨ÉÉ Ê´É{ɪÉÉÇʺÉiÉnù¶ÉÇ´Éè&*
OÉÉZÉOÉɽþ±ÉºÉÆÊ´ÉÊkɦÉänù´ÉÉÊxÉ´É ±ÉIªÉiÉä**
And [Anandagiri], the author of the gloss, writes on this;
EòÒÌiÉ´ÉÉCªÉ¨ÉÖnùɽþ®úÊiÉ -+ʦÉzÉä%Ê{É Ê½þ etc.
This same verse occurs in ['Sankara's Upade;sa-sahasri] (XVIII. 142). Again, in his [Brahmasutra-bhasya (II.2. 28), in refuting the [Vijnanavada], ['Sankara] says,
<½þ iÉÖ ªÉlÉɺ´ÉÆ ¤ÉÉZÉÉä%lÉÇ ={ɱɦªÉ¨ÉÉxÉ& ....... +iÉ B¤É 'ºÉ½þÉä{Éɱɨ¦ÉÊxɪÉ-¨ÉÉä%Ê{É"
|ÉiªÉªÉʴɹɪɪÉÉä °ü{ÉɪÉÉä{ÉäªÉ¦É´É½äþiÉÖEò&. xÉɦÉänù½äþiÉÖEò& <iªÉÖ{ÉMÉxiÉ´ªÉ¨ÉÂ*
This ºÉ½þÉä{ɱɨ¦ÉÊxÉªÉ¨É is a reference to Dharmakirti's
ºÉ½þÉä{ɱɨ¦ÉÊxɪɨÉÉnù¦ÉänùÉä °ü{ÉiÉÊuùªÉÉä&*
and
¦ÉÉänù·É §ÉÉxiÉÊ´ÉCYÉÉxÉè& ]Þõ¶ªÉiÉäxnùÉÊ´É´ÉÉ%nÚùªÉä*
respectively, from his [Pramanani'scaya] and [Pramanavarttika]. This is again quoted by [Vacaspati Mi'sra] in the [Bhamati] under the {ÉÖ´ÉÇ{ÉIɦÉɹªÉ of ['Sankara]:
+Ê{ÉSÉ, ºÉ½þÉä{ɱɨ¦ÉÊxɪɨÉÉnù¦ÉänùÉä, ʴɹɪÉÊ´ÉYÉÉxɪÉÉä®úÉ{ÉiÉÊiÉ*""