05 SACRIFICE alias THE YEAR

Contents

• Primitive caleadar co-eval with the sacrificial system
• Prajāpati= Yajña=Saṁvatsara
• Civil or sāvana days.
• Sāvana and lunar months
• Lunar and solar years
• Intercalcary days and months in Vedic times
• Solar year was sidereal and not tropical
• Old beginning of the year and the sacrifice.
• The Viṣuvān day
• Vernal equinox and winter solstice
• Uttarāyaṇa and Dakshiṇāyana
• Devayāna and Pitr̥yāna
  • Their original meaning
  • Bhāskara charya’s mistake about the day of the Devas -The two year beginnings were subsequently utilised for different purposes.

Intro

It is necessary, in the first place, to see what contrivances were adopted by the ancient Aryas for the measurement and division of time. The present Indian system has been thus described by Professor Whitney in his notes to the Sūrya Siddhānta (1. 13, notes):

In the ordinary reckoning of time, these elements are variously combined. Throughout Southern India (see Warren’s Kāla Sankalita, Madras, 1825, p. 4, etc.), the year and month made use of are the solar, and the day the civil; the beginning of each month and year being counted, in practice, from the sunrise nearest to the moment of their actual commencement.

In all Northern India the year is luni-solar; the month is lunar and is divided into both lunar and civil days; the year is composed of a variable number of months, either twelve or thirteen, beginning always with the lunar month, of which the commencement next precedes the true commencement of the sidercal year. But underneath this division, the division of the actual sidereal year into twelve solar months is likewise kept up, and to maintain the concurrence of the civil and lunar days, and the lunar and solar months, is a process of great complexity, into the details of which we need not enter here.

But the complications here referred to are evidently the growth of later times. The four ways of reckoning time, the Sāvana, the Chāndra, the Nākṣatra and the Saura, are not all referred to in the early works, and even in later days all these measures of time do not appear to have been fully and systematically utilised. There is, as I have said before, no early work extant on Vedic calendar, except the small tract on Jyotiṣa, and our information about the oldest calendar must, therefore, be gathered either from stray references in the Vedic works or from the early traditions or practices recorded in the old sacrificial literature of India.

Sacrifice and calendar

There are several sacrificial hymns in the R̥gveda, which show that the sacrificial ceremonies must then have been considerably developed ; and as no sacrificial system could be developed without the knowledge of months, seasons, and the year, it will not be too much to presume that in Vedic times there must have existed a calendar to regulate the sacrifices. It is difficult to determine the exact nature of this calender, but a study of the sacrificial literature would show that the phases of the moon, the changes in the seasons, and the southern and northern courses of the sun were the principal land-marks in the measurement of time in these early days.(5) What is still more interesting, however, is that the leading features in the early sacrifices are the same as those in the year. The late Dr. Haug, in his introduction to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, has observed that “the satras, which lasted for one year, were nothing but an imitation of the sun’s yearly course. They were divided into two distinct parts, each consisting of six months of 30 days cach. In the midst of both was the Viṣuvān, i.e. the equator or the central day, cutting the whole satra into two halves.” * (* Ait, Br. Intr., p. 48.) This clearly shows that the ancient R̥ṣis prepared their calendar mainly for sacrificial purposes, and the performance of various sacrifices facilitated, in its turn, the keeping up of the calendar.(5) Offerings were made every morning and evening, on every new and full moon, and at the commencement of every season and ayana. + (Cf. Baudhāyana Sūtras, ii, 4.23, which describes the continuous round of sacrifices as follows - अग्न्याधेय-प्रभृत्यथेमान्य् अजस्राणि भवन्ति। यथैतद् अग्न्याधेयम् अग्निहोत्रं दर्शपूर्णमासाव्, आग्रयणम्, उदगयन-दक्षिणायनयोः पशुश् चातुर्मास्यान्य् ऋतुमुखे षड्ढोता वसन्ते ज्योतिष्टोम इत्येवं क्षेमप्रापणम्। Also compare Manu iv. 25.26, and Yājñavalkya i, 125.)

When this course of sacrifices was thus completed, it was naturally found that the year also had run its course, and the sacrifice and the year, therefore, seem to have early become synonymous terms.(5) There are many passages in the Brāhmaṇas and Saṁhitās, where Saṁvatsara and Yajña are declared to be convertible terms, and no other theory has yet been suggested on which this may be accounted for. (See Ait, Br, ii. 17, which says are: संवत्सरः प्रजापतिः। प्रजापतिर् यज्ञः। Also Ait. Br. iv, 22; śatapatha Br. xi. 1. 1. 1; 2. 7. 1. In Taitt San. ii. 5. 7. 3; vii. 5. 7. 4 we have संवत्सरः प्रजापतिः।) I am therefore inclined to believe that the Vedic R̥ṣis kept up their calendar by performing the corresponding round of sacrifices on the sacred fire that constantly burnt in their houses, like the fire of the Parsi priest in modern times. The numerous sacrificial details, which we find so fully dercribed in the Brāhmaṇas, might be later innovations, but the main idea of the yearly sacrifice appears to be an old one. The etymology of the word r̥tvij (r̥tu + yaj - season sacrificer)(5) shows that even in the oldest days there existed a certain correspondence between the sacrifices and the seasons, and what is true of the seasons is true of the year, which according to one derivation of saṁvatsara (vas - to dwell) is nothing but a period where seasons dwell, or a cycle of seasons.(4) (* Ct, Bhanu Dīkṣita’s Com. on Amar a i, 4, 20, Dr. Schrader, in his Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples, Part iv., Ch. vi. (p. 305) also makes a similar observation. He holds, on philological grounds, that the conception of the year was already formedin the primeval period by combining into one whole the conception of winter and summer, wbich he believes to be the two primeval seasons. )

The priests were not only the sacrificers of the community, but were also its time-keepers, (In Rome the care of the calendar was considered a religious function, and it had from earliest times been placed in the hands of the pontiffs," Lewis’s Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancicats, p. 24.) and these two functions they appear to have blended into one by assigning the commencement of the several sacrifices to the leading days of the year, on the natural ground that if the sacrifices were to be performed they must be performed on the principal days of the year.(5) (Plato states that the months and years are regulated in order that the sacrifces and festivals may correspond with the naturul seasons ; and Cicero remarks that the system of intercalation wa introduced with this object." Lewis’s His. Astr. Anc, p. )

Some scholars have suggested that the yearly satras might have been subsequently invented by the priests. But the hypothesis derives little support from the oldest records and traditions of all the sections of the Aryan race. Without a yearly satra regularly kept up a Vedic Rishi could hardly have been able to ascertain and measure the course of time in the way he did. When better contrivances were subsequently discovered the sacrifice might naturally become divested of their time-keeping function and the differentiation so caused might have ultimately led to an independent development of both the sacrifices and the calendar. It is to this stage that we must assign the introduction of the numerous details of the yearly sacrifice mentioned in later works ; and thus understood, the idea of a sacrifice extending over the whole year, may be safely supposed to have originated in the oldest days of the history of the Aryan race. * (. Comparative Philology also points to the same conclusion ; Cf. Sanskrit yaj, Zand yaj, Greek agos. It is well-known that the sacrificial system obtained amongst the Greeks, the Romans and the Iranians.) In fact, it may be regarded as coeval with, if not antecedent to, the very beginning of the calendar itself.

We have now to examine the principal parts of the year, alias the sacrifice. The sāvana or the civil day appears to have been, as its etymology shows, selected in such cases as the natural unit of time. († Sāvana is derived from su to sacrifice, and means literally a sacrificial day.) 30 such days made a month and 12 such months or 360 sāvana days made a year. (1 Ait, Br. ii. 17; Taitt San. ii, 5, 8.8; Rig, 1, 164. 48. Prof. Whitney (Sur, sid. 13,7) observes: “The civil (sāvana) day is the natural day. A month of 30 and a year of 360 days are supposed to have formed the basis of the earliest Hindu Chronology, an intercalary month being added once in five years.") Comparative Philology, however, shews that the names for the month and the moon coincide, with occasional small differences of suffix,* in most of the Indo-European languages, and we may therefore conclude that in the primitive Aryan times the month was determined by the moon. (* See Dr, Schrader’s Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples, Part iv., Chap. vi. Translation by Jevons, p. 206. Also Max Mūller’s Biographies of Words, p. 193. )

Lunar adjustments

Now a month of thirty civil or sāvana days cannot correspond with a lunar synodical month, and the Brahmavādins had therefore to omit a day in some of the sāvana months to secure the concurrence of the civil and the lunar months. (उत्सृज्याँ नोसृज्यामिति मीमांसन्ते ब्रह्मवादिनः (5): 1 Taitt, San, vii, 5. 7. 1., and Tāndya Br. v. 10. See also Kāla-Mādhyava Chap. on Month, Cal, Bd. p. 63.) The year of 360 sāvana days was thus practically reduced to a lunar year of 354 civil days or 360 tithis. But a further correction was necessary to adjust the lunar with the solar reckoning of time. The zodiac was not yet divided into twelve equal parts, and the solar month, as we now understand it, was unknown. The commencement of the cycle of seasons was, therefore, the only means to correct the calendar, and the ancient Aryas appeared to have early hit upon the device of the intercalary days or month for that purpose. There are many passages in the Taittirīya and Vājasaneyi Saṁhitās and also one in the R̥gveda (1 Taitt. Sac. i 4, 14; Vaj. San. 7. 70; Rig. 1. 25. 8. As regarda the twelve hallowed ( intercalary) nights Cf. Rig, iv. 33. 7; Atha Veda iv. 11. 11 ; Taitt, Br. i. 1. 9. 10.) wherein the intercalary month is mentioned, and though opinions may differ as to when and how it was inserted, we may, for the purpose of our present inquiry, regard it as undisputed that in the old Vedic days means were devised and adopted to secure the correspondence of the lunar with the solar year.

Seasonal adjustment

The occurrence of the twelve hallowed nights amongst the Teutons points to the same conclusion. They were in fact the supplementary days (366-384 - 12) required to balance the lunar with the solar year, – a period when the R̥bhus, or the genii of the seasons, slackened their course and enjoyed the hospitality of the sun after toiling for a whole year (Rig. i. 33. 7.), (* See Zimmer’s Life in Ancient India, p. 366; Kaegi’s R̥gveda (traoslation by Arrowsmith), pp.20, 37.) and when Prajāpati, the God of sacrifices, after finishing the old year’s sacrifice, prepared himself for the new year’s work (Atharva Veda iv, 11. 11.). The sacrificial literature of India still preserves the memory of these days by ordaining that a person wishing to perform a yearly sacrifice should devote 12 days (dvadashaha) before its commencement to the preparatory rites.++(5) These facts, in my opinion, conclusively establish that the primitive Aryans had solved the problem involved in balancing the solar with the lunar year. There may be some doubt as to whether the concurrence of the two years was at first secured by intercalating twelve days at the end of every lunar year, or whether the days were allowed to accumulate until an intercalary month could be inserted. The former appears to - have been the older method, especially as it has been utilised and retained in the performance of yearly sacrifices; but whichsoever may be the older method, one thing is certain, that primitive Aryas had contrived means for adjusting the lunar with the solar year.

Skeptics’ preconceptions

Prof. Weber and Dr. Schrader appear to doubt († See Indische Studien, xviii. 224, and Dr. Schrader’s observations thereon in his Prehistoric Antiquities of Aryan Peoples, Part iv., Chap. vi., pp. 308.10.) the conclusion on the sole ground that we cannot suppose the primitive Aryans to have so far advanced in civilization as to correctly comprehend such problems. This means that we must refuse to draw legitimate inferences from plain facts when such inferences conflict with our preconceived notions about the primitive Aryan civilization. I am not disposed to follow this method, nor do I think that people, who knew and worked in metals, made clothing of wool, constructed boats, built houses and chariots, performed sacrifices, and had made some advance in agriculture,* (* For a short summary of the primitive Aryan civilization, see Peile’s Primer of Philology, pp. 66, 67 ; also Kaegi’s R̥gveda, translated by Arrowsmith, pp. 11-20) were incapable of ascertaining the solar and the lunar year. They could not have determined it correct to a fraction of a second as modern astronomers have done ; but a rough practical estimate was, certainly, not beyond their powers of comprehension. Dr. Schrader has himself observed that the conception of the year in the primeval period was formed by combining the conceptions of the seasons. † (+ See reh. Ant. Ary Peoples translated by Jevons, p. 305.) If so, it would not be difficult, even for these primitive Aryans, to percieve that the period of twelve full moons fell short of their seasonal year by twelve days. Dr. Schrader again forgets he fact that it is more convenient, and hence easier and more natural, to make the year begin with a particular season or a fixed position of the sun in the heavens, than to have an ever-varying measure of time like the lunar year. Lewis, in his Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, quotes Geminus to shew that " the system pursued by the ancient Greeks was to determine their months by the moon and their years by the sun," (I to wis. Hist. Surv. Astron. An.., p. 18.) and this appears to me to have been the system in force in the Indo-Germanic, or at any rate in the primitive Vedic period. There is no other conclusion that we can fairly draw from the facts and passages noted above.

Siderial, not tropical year

There is, however, a further question, as to whether the solar year, with reference to which these corrections were made, was tropical or sidereal. It is true that the great object of the caleader was to ascertain the proper time of the seasons. But the change in the seasons consequent upon the precession of the equinoxes is so exceedingly minute as to become appreciable only after hundreds of years, and it is more probable than not that it must have escaped the notice of the early observers of the heavens, whose only method of determining the position of the sun in the ecliptic was to observe every morning the fixed stars nearest that luminary.* (Taitt. Br. i. 5.2. 1; यत्पुण्य॒न्नक्ष॑त्रम्, तद् बट्कु॑र्वीतोपव्यु॒षम्। य॒दा वै सूर्य॑ उ॒देति॑, अथ॒ नक्ष॑त्र॒न् नैति॑ (अस्तम्), याव॑ति॒ तत्र॒ सूर्यो॒ गच्छे॑त् यत्र॑ जघ॒न्यं॑ (पुण्यनक्षत्रस्थानम्) पश्ये॑त् - ताव॑ति कुर्वीत यत्का॒री स्यात् । पु॒ण्या॒ह ए॒व कु॑रुते । This is still recited at the Puṇyāha-vāchana ceremony. ) Under such a system the year would naturally be said to be complete when the sun returned to the same fixed star, Prof. Whitney has pointed out that the same system is followed in the Sūrya Siddhānta, though the motion of the equinoxes was then discovered. (- Sur Sid, i. 13, n. “It is, however, not the tropical solar year which we employ, but the sidereal, no account being made of the precession of the equinoxes,”) It is, therefore, natural to presume that the early Vedic priests were igaorant of the motion of the equinoxes. No early work makes any mention of or refers to it either expressly or otherwise ; and the solar year mentioned in the Vedic works must, therefore, be considered as sidereal and not tropical. This would necessitate a change in the beginning of the year, every two thousand years or so, to make it correspond with the cycle of natural seasons, and the fact that such changes were introduced twice or thrice is a further proof of the old year being a sidereal one.(5 * The Kr̥ttikās once headed the list of the Nakṣatras, which now begins with Ashvini. Other changes are discussed in the following chapters of this work.) The difference between the sidereal and the tropical year is 20.4 minutes, which causes the seasons to fall back nearly one lunar month in about every two thousand years, if the sidereal solar year be taken as the standard of measurement. When these changes and corrections came to be noticed for the first time, they must have created a great surprise, and it was not till after one or two adjustments on this account were made that their true reason, the motion of the equinoxes, could have been discovered. Garga tells us that if the sun were to turn to the north without reaching Dhanishtha, († Garga quoted by Bhattotpala on Br̥hat. San. iii, 1 : यदा निवर्ततेऽप्राप्तः श्रविष्ठाम् उत्तरायणे । आश्लेषां दक्षिणेऽपाप्तस् तदा विद्यान् महाभयम् ॥) it foretold great calamity, and I am disposed to put a similar interpretation upon the story of Prajāpati alias Yajña alias the year, who, contrary to all expectations, moved backwards to his daughter Rohiṇi. (1 Ait. Br. iii. 33. The passage is discussed in this light further on in Chapter VIII. See also Shat. Br. i. 7. 4. .) But as I wish to examine the tradition more fully hereafter, it is not necessary to dilate on the point here. My object at present is to show that the Vedic solar year was sidereal and not tropical, and what has been said above is, I believe sufficient to justify such a presumption, at least for the present, though it may afterwards be either retained or discarded, according as it tallies or jars with other facts.

Opinions differ as to whether the lunar month began with the full or the new moon,* (* See Kāla Mādhava, Chapter on Month, Cal, Ed., p. 63; पौर्णमास्य् अन्तत्वे श्रुतेः कटाक्षो भूयान्। We can thus explain why the full moon night of a month was described as the first night of the year. See infra. ) and whether the original number of Nakṣatras was 27 or 28. † (+ Pref, to Rig.. Vol. IV., and Whitney’s Essay on the Hindu and Chinese Asterisms.)

Year beginning

I have already stated that the sacrifice and the year were treated as synonymous in old days, and we may, therefore, naturally expect to find that the beginning of the one was also the beginning of the other. The Vedānga Jyotiṣa makes the year commence with the winter solstice, and there are passages, in the Shrauta Sūtras which lay down that the annual sacrifices like gavām-ayana, should be begun at the same time. (* See Ved. Jy. 5; āśvalāyana Shr. Su, i. 2. 14, 1; ii, 2, 14, 3 and 22; Kat. Shr. Su.v.1.1.) A tradition has also been recorded by Jaimini and others that all Deva ceremonies should be performed only during the Uttarāyaṇa (Mimāṁsā Darśana, vi. 8. 5. āshvalāyana, Gr. Su. i. 4. 1, śatapatha, Br. xiv. 9, 3.1 The last quoted in Kāla Mādhava. Chapter on Ayana. Cal. Ed., p. 67, but from the Kāṇva recension thus: उदगयने आपूर्यमाणपक्षस्य पुण्याहे द्वादशाहम् उपसद्-व्रती भूत्वा । ); and the Uttarāyaṇa, according to the several Jyotiṣa works. (Sur, Sid, xiv, 10; Ved. Jy. 5.) is the period of the year from the winter to the summer solstice, that is, from the time when the sun turns towards the north till it returns towards the south. This leads one to suppose that the winter solstice was the beginning of the year and also of the Uttarūyaṇa at the time when the annual sacrifices were established, and therefore in the old Vedic days. But a closer consideration of the ceremonies performed in the yearly satras will show that the winter solstice could not have been the original beginning of these satras.

The middle day of the annual satra is called the Viṣūvān day, and it is expressly stated that this central day divides the satra into two equal halves in the same way as the Viṣūvān or the equinoctial day divides the year. (* Ait, Br. iv. 19; Taitt, Br. 1, 2, 3, 1 ; Tān. Br. 7,4,) The satra was thus the imitation of the year in every respect, and originally it must have corresponded exactly with the course of the year. Now, as Viṣūvān literally means the time when day and night are of equal length, if we suppose the year to have at the time commenced with the winter solstice, the Viṣūvān or the equinoctial day could never have been its central day, and the middle day of the satra would correspond, not with the equinoctial, as it should, but with the summer solstice. It might be urged that Viṣūvān as referring to the satra should be supposed to be used in a secondary sense. But this does not solve the difficulty. It presupposes that Viṣuvān must have been used at one time in the primary sense (i. e., denoting the time when day and night are equal), and if in its primary sense it was not used with reference to the satra, it must have been so used at least with reference to the year. But if Viṣūvān was thus the central day of the year, the year must have once commenced with the equinoxes.

The word Uttarāyaṇa is again susceptible of two interpretations. It may mean “turning towards the north from the southernmost point,” or it may indicate “the passage of the sun into the northern hemisphere, i. e., to the north of the equator."(5) If we adopt the first meaning, the Uttarāyaṇa and the year must be held to commence from the winter solstice, while if the second interpretation be correct, the Uttarāyaṇa and the year must have once commenced with the vernal equinox. The facts, that the central day of the annual satra was called viṣūvān, that Vasanta or spring was considered to be the first of the seasons* (• Taitt. Br, i. 1, 2. 6. मुखं वा एतद् ऋतूनां यद् वसन्तः। Upon this the author of Kāla Mādhava observes संवत्सरोपक्रम-रूपत्वेन वसन्तस्य प्राथम्यं द्रष्टव्यम्। Cal. Ed., p. 69. ) and that the āgrayaṇeṣṭis or the half-yearly sacrifices were required to be performed every Vasanta (spring) and śarad (autumn) † († Ashvalāyana Shr. Sut. i. 2. 9. 3-4.) clearly shew that the second of the two interpretations given above is more likely to be the older one. Let us, however, examine the point more fully.

The only passages where Uttarāyaṇa is mentioned in the Vedic works are those wherein the white and the black paths for the souls of the deceased, the Devayāna and the Pitr̥yāna, are described. The words Devayāna and Pitr̥yāna occur several times in the R̥gveda. Agni is said to know both these;(5 See Rig. 1. 72. 7. and x 2.7. ) while in the Vājasaneyi Saṁhitā 19. 47, these are said to be the two paths open to mortals. In the R̥gveda 1. 18, 1, the path of the god of Death is said to be the reverse of Devayāna, and in the R̥gveda x. 98. 11, Agni is said to know Devayāna by seasons. (विद्वान् पथ ऋतुशो देवयानान्। Sāyaṇa, however, takes ऋतुशः: with the very धेहित्. But query ?) There is, however, no passage in the R̥gveda where devayāna is fully defined and we have consequently to refer to the passages in the Br̥hadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (* See also Yāska’s Nirukta 14. 9; Mahānārayaṇopaniṣad 25, l; and Shankaracharya’s Bhashya on Brahma Sūtras iv, 2. 18-21, where all such passages are collected and discussed) for a fuller explanation of these terms. Before the idea was recorded in these works it must undoubtedly have received considerable additions, but nevertheless the original sense cannot be supposed to have been completely lost in these later additions. It is therefore extremely important to see how these two paths are described in the Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads. Br̥h. vi., 2, 15 and Ch, iv. 15.5 state that “flame, day, the increasing moon, the six months when the sun is towards the north, the devaloka (Ch. devapatha) or the abode (Ch. patha) of gods, &c.,” is the way never to return; while “smoke, night, the decreasing moon, and the six months when the sun is towards the south, the pitr̥loka or the abode of Pitr̥s” is the reverse. (अर्चिषो ऽहर् अह्न आपूर्यमाणपक्षम्। आपूर्यमाणपक्षाद्यान् षण्मासान् उदङ्ङ् आदित्य एति - मासेभ्यो देवलोकं…तेषां न पुनरावृत्तिः। धूमाद्रातिं रात्रेर् अपक्षीयमाणपक्षम्। अपक्षीयमाण-पक्षाद्यान् षण्मासान् दक्षिणादित्य एति - मासेभ्यः पितृलोकम्…। Br̥had, vi, 2. 15. instead of “six months when sun goes north and south,” Yāska and Mahānā use the words उदगयन and दक्षिणायन while in Chh, we have देवपथ instead of देवलोक in Br̥had, In kaus. i. 3, it is called देवयान.)

In the Bhagavad Gita viii. 24, 25 we find the same sentiments in modern phraseology, and the question is, what is meant by the phrase " the six months when the sun is towards the north." or, as Yāska and the Gitā have it, (अग्निर् ज्योतिर् अहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तराअयणम् Gitā viii, 24.) “the six months of the Uttarāyaṇa." Almost all the commentators have interpreted the expression to mean the six months from the winter to the summer solstice. (*Shankaracharya is not explicit ; yet his reference to the death of Bhiṣma shows that he takes the same view. Ānandgiri on Praśnopaniṣad i. 9, says ज्येष्ठादिर् दक्षिणायनम्।) But notwithstanding their high authority it will be found that their interpretation, though in consonance with the later astronomical views, is directly opposed to the passages in the Vedic works.(5) In the Taittirīya Saṁhita vi. 5. 3, we are told “the sun, therefore, goes by the south for six months and six by the north". But this does not help us in ascertaining the correct meaning of the phrase “by the north.” As it stands it may mean either the solsticial or the equinoctial six months. We must therefore look for another passage, and this we find in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (ii. 1. 3, 1-3), where in describing the two aforesaid paths, it lays down in distinct terms that Vasanta, Griṣma and Varsha are the seasons of the Devas; śarad, Hemanta and Shishira those of the Pitr̥s ; the increasing fortnight is of the Devas; the decreasing one of the Pitr̥s; the day is of the Devas; the night of the Pitr̥s; again the first part of the day is of the Deva ; the latter of the Pitr̥s…………

When he (the sun) turns to the north, he is amongst the Devas and protects them; when he turns to the south he is amongst the Pitr̥s and protects them.

As the passage is important I give it here in full:
वसन्तो ग्रीष्मो वर्षा - ते देवा ऋतवः। शरद्+हेमन्तः शिशिरस् - ते पितरः। य एवापूर्यते ऽर्धमासः - स देवा, योऽपक्षीयते स पितरो, ऽहर् एव देवा, रात्रिः पितरः, पुनरह्नः पूर्वाह्णो देवा, अपराह्णः पितरः। …… स यत्र उदगावर्तते देवेषु तर्हि भवति। देवांस् तर्ह्य् अभिगोपायस्य्, अथ यत्र दक्षिणावर्तते पितृषु तर्हि भवति, पितॄंस् तर्हि गोपायति ।

This removes all doubts as to what we are to understand by devayāna, devapatha, or devalōka and Uttarāyaṇa as con nected with it. The Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is a part of the śatapatha Brahmaña, and we shall not be violating any rule of interpretation if we interpret the passage in the one in the light of a similar passage in the other. Now if Vasanta (spring), Griṣma (summer) and Varṣā (rains) were the seasons of the Devas and the sun moved amongst the Devas when he turned to the north, it is impossible to maintain that the Devayāna or the Uttarāyaṇa ever commenced with the winter solstice, for in neither hemisphere the winter solstice marks the beginning of spring, the first of the Deva seasons. The seasons in Central Asia and India differ. Thus the rains in India commence about or after the summer solstice, while in the plains of Asia the season occurs about the autumnal equinox.(5) But in neither case Vasanta (spring) commences with the winter solstice or Varṣā (rains) ends at the summer solstice. We must therefore hold that Devayāna in those days was understood to extend over the six months of the year, which comprised the three seasons of spring, summer, and rains, i. e., from the vernal to the autumnal equinox, when the sun was in the northern hemisphere or to the north of the equator. This shows further that the oldest order of seasons did not place Varṣā (rains) at the summer solstice, when the chief Indian monsoon commences; but at the autumnal equinox.(5) The winter solstice, according to this order, falls in the middle of Hemanta.(4) In the modern astronomical works, the winter solstice is, however, placed at the end and not in the middle of Hemanta, while the vernal equinox is said to fall in the middle of Vasanta. When the Vedic Aryas became settled in India, such a change in the old order of seasons was necessary to make them correspond with the real aspect of nature. But it is difficult to determine exactly when this change was made. (• See Zimmer’s Life ia Ancient India p. 371. Kaegi’s R̥gveda, p. 116, note 68.)

The old order of seasons given in the passage above quoted, however, clearly states that Vasanta in old days commenced with the vernal equinox. We can now understand why Vasanta has been spoken of as the first season and why the Nakṣatras have been divided into two groups called the Deva Nakṣatras and the Yama Nakṣatras (Taitt, Br. i. 1.2.6 and i. 5. 2. 6. 1). I am aware of the theory which attempts to explain away the passages above cited as metaphorical to avoid the appearance of superstition. (See Thomson’s Bhagavad Gita, p. 60. ) But the method is neither sound nor necessary. The path of the Devas and the path of the Pitr̥s are several times referred to in the R̥gveda, and though we might suppose the Brahmavādins to have developed the two ideas to their ut most extent, it cannot be denied that the original idea is an old one, suggested by the passage of the sun in the northern aud southern hemispheres.

In the absence of anything to the contrary we might therefore take it as established that in the early Vedic days the year began when the sun was in the vernal equinox ; and as the sun then passed from the south to the north of the equator it was also the commencement of his northern passage. In other words, the Uttarāyaṇa (if such a word was then used), Vasanta, the year and the Satras all commenced together at the vernal equinox. The autumnal equinox which came after the rains was the central day of the year, and the latter half of the year was named the Pitr̥yāna or what we would now call the Dakshiṇayana.

It is difficult to definitely ascertain the time when the commencement of the year was changed from the vernal equinox to the winter solstice. But the change must have been introduced long before the vernal equinox was in the Kr̥ttikās,(why??) and when this change was made uttarāyaṇa must have gradually come to denote the first half of the new year, i. e., the period from the winter to the summer solstice, especially as the word itself was capable of being understood in the sense of “turning towards the north from the southernmost point”. I am of opinion, however, that devayāna and pitr̥yāna, or devaloka and pitr̥loka were the only terms used in the oldest times.(5) It is a natural inference from the fact that the word Uttarāyaṇa, as such, does not occur in the R̥gveda. The fact, that Viṣūvān was the central day of the yearly satra, further shows that the sacrificial system was coeval with the division of the year into the paths of Devas and Pitr̥s.

After a certain period the beginning of the year was changed to the winter solstice, and it was sometime after this change was made that the words Uttarāyaṇa and dakshiṇāyana came to be used to denote the solstitial divisions of the year. But devayāna and pitr̥yīna could not be at once divested of the ideas which had already become associated with them. Thus while new feasts and sacrifices came to be regulated according to Uttarāyaṇa and dakshiṇāyana, devayāna and pitr̥yūna with all the associated ideas continued to exist by the side of the new system, until they became either gradually assimilated with the new system or the priests reconciled the new and the old systems by allowing option to individuals to follow whichever they deemed best.

Bhaskara’s error

We must therefore take great care not to allow the idea of Uttarāyaṇa, as we now understand it, to obscure our vision in interpreting the early Vedic traditions, and that too much care can never be taken is evident from the fact that even so acute an astronomer as Bhāskarācārya was at a loss to correctly understand the tradition that the Uttarāyaṇa was the day of the Devas. In his Siddhānta Shiromani he raises the question how the Uttarāyaṇa, as it was generally understood in his day, could be the day of the Devas. He admits that the celestial beings on Meru at the North Pole behold the sun (during all the six months) when he is in the northern hemisphere (vii. 9) and these six months may therefore be properly called their day. (5) (* In the Sūrya Siddhānta xii, 67 it is said that " At Meru Gods behold the sun, after but a single rising, during the hall of his revolution beginging with Aries;” while in xiv, 9, the Uttarāyaṇa is said to commence " from the sun’s entrance into Capricorn." The author, however, has not noticed the tradition that the Uttarāyaṇa is the day of the Devas and the apparent inconsistency arising therefrom. Perhaps he understood the tradition in its true sense. ) But the word Uttarāyaṇa was then used to denote the period of six months from the winter to the summer solstice; and Bhāskarācārya was unable to understand how such an Uttarāyaṇa could be called the day of the Devas by the writers of the astronomical Saṁhitās. If the sun is visible to the Gods at Meru from the vernal equinox to the summer solstice, its passage back to the autumnal equinox lies through the same latitudes and in that passage, i. e., during three months after the summer solstice, the sun must, says Bhāskarācārya, be visible to the Gods. But according to the saṁhitā-writers the day of the Devas ended with the Uttarāyaṇa, that is, as Bhāskara understood the word, at the summer solstice. How is this conflict to be reconciled ? Bhāskarācārya could give no satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and asks his readers to reconcile the conflicting statements on the supposition that the doctrine may be regarded as referring to “judicial astrology and the fruits it foretells.”*
*The original verses are as follows: दिनं सुराणाम् अयनं यद् उत्तरं
निशेतरत् सांहितिकैः प्रकीर्तितम् ।
दिनोन्मुखे ऽर्के दिनम् एव तन्मतं
निशा तथा तत्फलकीर्तनाय तत् ॥
द्वन्द्वान्तम् आरोहति यैः क्रमेण
तैर् एव वृत्तैर् अवरोहतीनः । यत्रैव दृष्टः प्रथमं स देवस्
तत्रैव तिष्ठन् न विलोक्यते किम् ।। Goladhyāya vii, 11-12, Bāpudevashastri’s Ed. pp 304, 5.

Had Bhāskarācārya however known that the word uttarlāyaṇa was sometimes used for devayāna to denote the passage of the sun from the vernal to the autumnal equinox, I am sure, he would not have asked us to be satisfied with the lame explanation that the doctrine of the saṁhitā-writers need not be mathematically correct as it refers exclusively to judicial astrology. It is difficult to say whether the ancient Aryan ever lived so near the north pole as to be aware of the existence of a day extending over at least two or three if not six months of the year. But the idea that the day of the Devas commences when the sun passes to the north of the equator appears to be an old one. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa iii. 9. 22. 1. we are told that the year is but a day of the Devas and even Herodotus (400 B. C.) mentions a people who sleep during the six months of the year. (*Quoted in Narrien’s Origin and Progress of Astronomy, p. 31. )

(एकं वा एतद् देवानाम् अहः - यत् संवत्सरः। It is however extremely hazardous to pose any theory upon this. Traditions like these have been cited as indicating the fact the North Pole was inhabited in old days! Similar other traditions are said to indicate the existence of pre-glacial period. Is it not more probable to suppose that when uttarāyaṇa and dakṣiṇāyana came to be first distinguished, they were respectively named ‘day’ and ’night’ with a qualifying word to mark their special nature? The history of languages shews that when people come across new ideas they try to name then in old words. The Uttarāyaṇa and the Dakshiṇāyana may have been thus conceived as God’s day and night. See infra. Chap. V.)

If the tradition is, therefore, as old as it is represented to be, it is impossible to reconcile it with the later meaning of Uttarāyaṇa as commencing from the winter solstice and this would then furnish an additional ground to hold that in early times the Uttarāyaṇa began with the vernal equinox as stated in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.

Conclusion

I have stated above that when the commencement of the year was altered from the vernal equinox to the winter solstice, Uttarāyaṇa either lost its older meaning or was rather used to denote the solstitial division of the year. But this is not the only consequence of that change. With the year the beginning of the annual satras was also gradually transferred to the winter solstice and the change was complete when the Taittirīya Saṁhitā was compiled. In fact had it not been for the passage in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa it would have been impossible to produce any direct evidence of the older practice. When the beginning of the satra was thus changed, the Viṣūvān day must have gradually lost its primary meaning and come to denote simply the central day of the yearly satra.

The old practice was not however completely forgotten and for the purpose of the Nakṣatra-sacrifices the vernal equinox was still taked as the starting point. Thus it is that Garga tells us that “of all the Nakṣatras the Kr̥ttikās are said to be the first for sacrificial purposes and śraviṣṭhā for (civil) enumeration.” (Quoted by Somakara on Ved. Jy, 5, तेषां च सर्वेषां नक्षत्राणां कर्मसु कृत्तिकाः प्रथमम् आचक्षते, श्रविष्ठा तु संख्यायाः। )+++ But even this distinction appears to have been eventually lost sight of by the later writers and all references to Uttarāyaṇa were understood to be made solely to the six months from the winter to the summer solstice, an error from which even Bhaskārācārya did not escape, though he perceived the absurdity caused by it in some cases.

At the present day we on the southern side of the Narmadā begin the year at the vernal equinox for all civil purposes, but still all the religious ceremonies prescribed to be performed in the Uttarāyaṇa, are performed during the Uttarāyaṇa beginning with the winter solstice, a position quite the reverse of that described by Garga. When we at the present day have been thus using the system of a double year-beginning, we need not be surprised if the ancient Aryas, after shifting the commencement of the year to the winter solstice, managed to keep up the old and the new system together by assigning the different beginnings of the year to different purposes as indicated by Garga. It was the only alternative possible if nothing old was to be entirely given up.