07 AGRAHAYANA

Fhālgunt full-moon, the new year’s night-Sāyaṇa’s explanation un. satisfactory–Phālguna could not be a Vasaota month-Two lold character of the seasons, lunar and solar, superfluous-Discus. sion of a passage in bhushruta-Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa’s explanation. Winter solstice on the full moon in Phaiguda-The position of other cardinal points Veroal quinox in Mr̥gaśiras. Agrahdyant. Native Lexicographers’ explanation of the word-Grammatically objectionable- Its real meaning according to Panini -Erroneous rank of Margashirsha amongst months according to the Bhagavad Gita and imara-Margashirsha could not have been the first month of the solistitial or the equinoctial year. It leads to the libration of the equinoxes-Possible reason of the libration theory–Mr̥gaśiras—Agrahayaga or the first Nakṣatra in the year-Mula, its primary meanirg-Evidence of the summer solstice occuring in Bhidrapada-Origin of the annual feasts to the manes amongst Hindus and l’arsis.–Comparison of the primitive Hindu and Parsi calender-summary of results. The passage from the Taittirīya Saṁhitā quoted in the last chapter states that the Chitra and Phalguni full-moons were the beginnings of the year, which then commenced with the winter solstice in the month of Māgha. The words used in the original are Chilra-purna-masa and Phalguni pūrna masa and these must be understood to denote, not the Chaitra and the Phālguna mooths, whether sidereal and synodical, as Prof. Weber seems to have, in one case, sup posed, but the full moon days in each of these munths. This is evident from the fact that these have been recom. mended as alternative times for the commencement of the satra in opposition to the Ekashtaka day. In the case of the Phaiguni.purna-masa we are further told that Viṣūvān counted from that time falls during the rainy season, and it is impossible to suppose that Viṣūvan can be counted from a mouth. The whole context, therefore, shows that it is a discussion as to the particular day best suited to commence the yearly sacrifice, and that Chitrd.pūrn a-misia and Phal. guni-pūrna masa must mean the days when the moon is full near the asterisms of Chitra and Phalgupi. In the Tāndya Brāhmaṇa* Phalguni-purna.māsa is rendered by Phalguni and Jaimini has paraphrased Chritā piirna-masa by Chaitri and Phalguni and Chaitri, according to Piṇini (iv. 2. 3), are the names of days. These interpretations have been accept ed by all the Mimānsakas including Sāyaṇa, and we may do the same especially as there are several passages in the Taittirīya saṁhitā where piirna-māsa is used in a similar sense.t But why should the Chitrā and the Phalgunī full-moon be called the beginnings of the year? Sāyaṇa thinks that they were so described because they occurred during Vasanta or the first of the seasons. I But the explanation does not appear satisfactory. I have previously shown that according to all astronomical works Shishira commenced with the winter solstice, and that the three seasons of Shi * See the passages quoted in the last chapter,

• # In Taitt, San. ii 2. 10. 1. we find ta sur ATA similarly used. In 1, 5. 10.3. T iarat are mentioned together; while in ii. 5. 4. 1. पूर्णमास and अमावास्या are contrasted. In his commentary on Taitt, San. vii. 4. 8. speaking of in atquiara Sāyaṇa observes att nadal nitaarCI got देवामित्याधानाधणे समाम्नातं । उत्तरयोरादधीत। एषा व प्रथमा रात्रि HTCATET OTTI nevarfai; while of farqorate he says:-hista वसंतर्तुमध्यपातित्वासंवत्सरस्य मुखमेव । IV.] AGRAHÄYANA. 63 shira, Vasanta and Grishima were comprised in the Uttarāyaṇa as it was then understood. Now in the days of the Taitti. riya Saṁhitā the winter solstice, as shown in the last chapter, fell in the month of Magha ; and Māgha and Phālguna were therefore comprised in Shishira, and Chai tra and Vaishakha in Vasanta. But in order that Sāyaṇa’s explanation might be correct Phālguna must fall in the Vasanta season which, as a matter of fact, it did not. la his commentary on the Baudhāyana Sūtras* and also in the Kalamadhavat Sāyaṇa tries to get over this difficulty by proposing a double Vasaota-lunar and solar, the lunar to include the months of Phālguna and Chaitra, and the solar those of Chaitra and Vaishākha, quoting amongst others, Rig. X., 88, 18, as an authority to show that the seasons were regulated by the moon. The authorities, however, are not explicit and therefore sufficient to maintain the two-fold character of the seasons ; nor do I see the necessity of the two-fold character. It is true that the months in the calendar were all lunar, but the concurrence of the lunar and the solar year was always secured by insertiag an inter. calary month whenever necessary. Uoder such a system lunar seasons can have no permanent place. Now and then lunar months ceased, as they now do, to correspond with the • The passage is quoted in India: what it can teagh us? p. 323 ; SAyana there quotes Taitt. San. vii. 4. 8., and after noticing that the Chitra and the Phalguni full moon are both said to bugin the year, he observes :-*797 megaspi asa: yra gacā ATFT यस्फाल्गुनीपूर्णमास इति श्रुतेः। एवं च सौरचांद्रभेदभिन्नं वसंतद्वयमुपसंगहीतं Wafa i The theory of the two-fold seasons thus appears to have been started simply to reconcile the two statements about the Chitrā and Phalguni full moons ; tSec Cal. Ed., pp. 60, 61, seasons they represented, but this was at once set aright by the introduction of an intercalary month. If we, therefore, exclude the correction due to the procession of the equi noxes, which was too minute to be noticed till after hundreds of years, there was thus no reason why the lunar seasons should come to be regarded as a permanent institution. But even accepling Sāyaṇa’s two-fold character of the seasons, it can be easily shewn that it does not support his conclu. sions. A lunar year is shorter than a solar year by II days. If the solar Vasanta, therefore, commences on the Ist day of the lunar Chaitra month this year, it will com. mence on the 12th day of Chaitra (lunar) next year and 11 days later still in the third year when by the introduction of an intercalary month the commencement of Vasanta will be again brought back to the 1st day of Ohaitra. The two fold character of the seasons may thus delay the beginning of Vislota lo Vaishakha (lunar), but the season cannot be accelerated and brought back to Phalguna. It is true that in the day of Sāyaṇa (14th century) Vasanta commenced, as it does now, in the month of Phalguna ; but it was so because the winter solstice had receded by over full ono month by that time. Sāyaṇa does not appear to have fully realised the reason of this change and combining the occur rence of Vasanta in Phālguna in his time with the occurrence of the same season in Chaitra in the days of the Taittirīya saṁhitā and other works he attempted to reconcile the difference on the theory of the two fold character of the seasons. But we can now better understand the change as due to the precession of the equinoxes, and must, in conse. quence, reject Siyana’s explanation as unsatisfactory. The only other authority I can find for supposing that Phālguna was a Vasanta month is the statement in Shū. IV.] AGRAHAYANA. 66 shruta’s medical work, that " Phalguna and Ohaitra make Vasanta." But on a closer examination of the passage wherein this sentence occurs, it will be found to bear cn its face the marks of later insertion. There are two conse cutive paragraphs in Sushruta, each cnumerating and describing the seasons of the year. The first states that " There the twelve months, beginning with Māgha, make 81x seasons, comprising two months cach. They are Shi. shira, &c………Of these Tapa and Tapasya make Shishira" aod 80 on until all the six seasons in their usual order, the ayanas, the year and the lastrum are described; and at the end we have “this is called the wheel of lime by some.” • The second paragraph then begins with the words " But here" and continues to state " But here the six seasons are. Varsha, śarad, Hemanta, Vasanta, Griṣma and Pravrish," thus altogether dropping Shishira and dividing the rainy period into two seasons Varshi and Pravrish. The para. graph then proceeds to assign the months to the seasons as follows :- Bhādrapada and Ashvina is Varsha, Kartika and Margashirsha is śarad, Pausha and Māgha is Hemanta, and Phālguna and Chaitra is Vasanta;" and so on until Sec Sushruta, Sūtrasthāna Adhyāya 6. The two consecutive paragraphs here referred to are: तन माधादयो द्वादश मासा द्विमासिकमृतुं कृत्वा पक्रतवो भवंति। ते शिशिरवसंतमीमवर्षाशरदेमंताः । तेषां तपस्तपस्यौ शिशिरः। ….. भयने दे भवतः । दक्षिणमुत्तरं च । तयोर्दक्षिणं वाशरदेमंता: ….स एष निमेषादियुगपर्यतः कामयपरिवर्तमानः कालचक्रमुच्यत इस्ये के। हतुवर्षाशरदेमंतवसंतप्रीष्मप्रावृषः पड़तवो भवंति।… ते तु भाद्र पदापन बिमालिकेन ग्याल्पाता तथथा। भाद्रपदाचयुजौ वर्षाः । कार्तिक मागेमा शरत। पोषमाधी मंतः। फाल्गन बैत्री वसंतः। वैशाखज्यसरी प्रीमः। भाषारमावणी प्राविति। all the months are assigned to their respective seasons. The second paragraph, however, makes no mention of the aganas, the year, or the lustrum. It is therefore evident that the writer of the second paragraph, whosoever he may be, wished to note that the seasons and their corres ponding months mentioned in the first paragraph had ceased to represent the actual state of things in the writer’s time and province, and not thinkiog it desirable or possible to expunge or correct the old paragraph, he added immediately after it a second paragraph describing the seasons as he saw them. The words “but here” at its beginning, the assigament of four months to the rainy season, but under two different games of Prāvrish and Varsha, to keep up the old number of the seasons, and the absence of any reference to the ayanas, the year and the lustrum described in the previous paragraph-all point to the conclusion that the second paragraph is of later origin and inserted with a view only to note the changes in the occurrence of events described in the paragraph next preceding it. It might be contended that the second paragraph is that of Sushruta, who notices the old order of things in the first. But I need not go into that question here. For in either case it is plain that the passage wherein Phālguna and Chaitra are assigned to Vasanta is the production of a later writer, whosoever he may be whether Sushruta or any one else, and as far as our present inquiry is concerned we cannot take the passage as an authority for holding that Phālguna was a Vasanta month in the days of the Taittirīya Saphitā. I may however remark, that Vāg. bhata who professes to summarise the works of Sushruta and Charaka gives the order and description of seasops as we find it in the first paragraph in Sushruta,* without alluding *Ashtangahr̥idaya Sūtrasthāna jii. 1., “Hiergeriga: SHTC gra: a: Praia…!" IV.) AGRAHẦYANA. to the changes noted in the second paragraph. We may, therefore, suppose that either the paragraph did not exist in Vāgbhata’s lime or that he did not regard it as genuine. There is thus no reliable authority, that I am aware of, for holding that Phālguna, in the days of the Taittirīya San hita, was a Vasanta month, and Sāyaṇa’s explanation does not in consequence hold good at least in this case. The ex planation is further inconsistent with the fact that in several Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras the full-moon night in the month of Phālguna has been pronounced to be the first night of the year. The śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (vi. 2. 2. 18) says “the Phālguni full-moon is the first night of the year.” The Taittirīya (i. 1, %, 8) and the śānkhyāyana (iv. 4 and v. 1)* Brāhmaṇas contain similar passages, while the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa (i. 19) after stating that the Uttard and the Purvā Phalgunī are respectively the beginning and the end of the year, adds “just as the two ends of a thiog meet so these two termini of the year meet together.”! I have already quoted a passage from the Tāndya Brāhmaṇa to the same effect. The Sutra-writers, though not so explicit, do however distinctly stale that the annual sacrifices “should be commenced either on the Chaitri or the Phālguni full-moon night.“I thus clearly indicating that these were regarded as the beginnings of the * gar āT ATT JYAT tofagealaft gloat Shat. Br. vi. 2. 2. 18. एषा वै प्रथमा रात्रिः संवत्सरस्य यदुत्तरे फल्गुनी। मुखत एवं BEATRIT 1914 gent Hala i Twitt. Br. i. 1. 2 8, go ar ga TERETET 4 epait groftefii san. Br. iv. 4. __ + मुखमुत्तरे फल्गुन्यौ पुच्छं पूर्वे । तद्यथाप्रवृत्तस्यांतौ संमतौ स्यात एवमेतत्संवत्सरस्थांती समेती भवतः। I dgt (scil, ataraiTETi) Fatoni Garfi szi ar para: Ashvalīyana Shs. Su. i. 2. 14,3; Kāt. Shr. Su, v. 1. 1; San. Shr. Su. iii. 8. 1., xiii. 18. 3. year. If these passages mean anything, we must hold that the Phājgupi full-moon night was once considered to be actually the first night of the year, or to put it in a modern form the new year’s night. We cannot assign this position to it by simply assuming, as Sāyaṇa has done, that the night occured sometime during the two months of Vasanta. Sāyaṇa, it appears, was aware of this objection and so in commenting on the passage from the Taitliriya saṁhitā, quoted in the last chapter, he attempts to explain the position of the Phālguni night by reference to the above mentioned passages in the Brāhmaṇas; while with respect to the Chaitri, he quietly observes that “this too is the mouth of the year as it falls during the season of Vasanta.”* But an explanation that admittedly fails in one case must fail in the other, for the Chitra and the Phālgupi nights are described together, in the same passage and in the same words, as the beginnings of the year. It will be clear from the above, first, that the theory of the lunar seasons, started by Sāyaṇa to account for the posi tion assigned to the Phālguni night in the Vedic works, cannot have a permanent place in the Vedic calendar ; secondly, even accepting the theory, the beginning of the solar Vasanta might be put off to the month of lunar) Vaishakha, but could not be brought back to any day in Phālguda ; and thirdly, the express texts in the Brāhmaṇas declaring the Phālguni full-moon to be the new-year’s night are inconsistent with Sāyaṇa’s explanation. We must there fore look for soine other solution. But if Sāyaṇa’s explanation cannot be accepted, at * See the original rewark quoted supra. The word “ too” in this explanation implies that it holds good also in the case of the Phaiguat full-m00n. 69 IV.] AGRAHĀYANA. least with respect to the Phālguni night, how are we to interpret the several passages in the saṁhitā and the Brāhmaṇas given above? We cannot suppose that the Phālguni full-moon commenced the year at the vernal equi. box ; for then we shall have to place the verual equinox in Uttara Bhādrapada, which lo render possible in the pre Krittikā period we must go back to something like 20,000 B. C. The only other alternative is to make the full-moon commence the year, at the winter solstice, and from the fact that the Maghi, the Phālguni and the Chaitrī full-moons are mentioned Logether in the same passage of the Tailtiriya saṁhitā, and for the same purpose, I conclude that this is the real meaning of the passage in the Taittirīya saṁhitā and those in the Brāhmaṇas. It is the most natural and reasonable interpretation of the passage and I find that Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa, who is older than Sāyaṇa, fully adopts this view in his Bhashya on the Taittirīya Saṁhitā." I have *AMS. of Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa’s Bhashya on the Taittirīya saṁhitā has been recently discovered at Mysore and through the kindness of Sir Sheshadri lyar, the Dewan of Mysore, I have been able to procure a copy of the Bhashya on the passage here discussed. Bbiskara Bhaṭṭa after commenting on the first part of the passage which states that the sacrifice should be commenced on the Ekāshtakā day, makes the following observation as regards the alternative next proposed :-paparacat qalere Tregueifat i ney मीपूर्णमास इत्यादि । फल्गुन्या युक्तः पूर्णमासः फल्गुनीपूर्णमास: । मुसंवा इति । भत्र केचिदाहुः फाल्गुनादिः संवत्सर इति । तन्मते मुखत एवं संव सरं परिगृय दीक्षा कृता भवति। As regards the third alternative pro. posed in the text, viz. the Chilri full.suvon Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa observes further on :-wa: qapiai argia I TOUTATA FROM tant: Narhe fa a aa garagena i Finally Bhāskara Bbatta follows Jaimini and Shabara in the interpretation of the last part of the passage and concludes by observing the best time for the incrifice is 4 days previous to the full moon in Māgha. 70 sonatta fully shews the passage. nere following however devoted so much space to the discussion of Saya. pa’s explanation as the high authority of that scholar is likely to mislead us in the interpretation of the passage. The Bhashya of Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa fully shews that Sāyaṇa is not here following any older tradition and the reasons given by him for explaining the position assigned to the Phalguni full-moon in the Vedic works are mere conjectures and guesses of his own. I admit that even the guesses of a scholar like Sāyaṇa deserye consideration. But when on a closer examination we find that they are not supported by any old traditions and are besides objectionablo on various Other grounds, I think we are bound to reject them. As observed by Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa the passage in the Taittirīya saṁhitā must, therefore, be understood as referring to an older year beginning, and we must hold that the full-moon in Phalguna did as a matter of fact once commence the year at the winter solstice. I know that this view has been regarded as improbable by some scholars, on the sole ground that it would, if substantiated, enhance the antiquity of the Vedic works by about 2000 years more than what these scholars are willing to assign to them; and as the natural result of such prepossessions amongst them the subject has till now remained uninvestigated. But I hope that they will patiently examine the evidence, direct and corroborative, which I intend to put forth in support of the suggestion and then give their judgment upon it. There is no a prior impossibility involved in the hypothesis that the old priests, after changing their starting point to thë Kr̥ttikās and framing the calendar accordingly, continued to recognize for sacrificial purposes, the older positions of the Nakṣatras, just as all Brāhmaṇs from the Himalaya to the Cape Comorin at present IV.] AGRAHAYANA. perform their sacrifices on days and at times fixed when the vernal equinox was in the Ksittikas. I think the present Brihmaps are worse off in this respect, inasmuch as they have not even the liberty, which the passage in the Taittirīya saṁhitā accorded, though hesitatingly, to the old priests, of choosing either the old or the new calender. To use the words of Professor Max. Mūller we must in such cases, therefore, “keep our preconceived aolions of what people call primitive humanity in abeyance for a time,” and form our judgment of antiquity, as we do of other facts, solely upon evidence. We have seen in the last chapter that the evidence for placing the vernal equinox in the Kr̥ttikās consisted of (1) the lists of the Nakṣatras all beginning with the Kpittikas, (2) the winter solstice then falliog in the month of Magha, (3) the Nakṣatra at the summer solstice being presided over by the pitr̥s, and (4) the possibility of considering, as Bentley suggested, the portion of the Nakṣatra at the autumnal equinox as divided by the equinoctial colure. In short, if the year was supposed to have begun in the month of Magha, the position of the four cardinal points of the ecliptic as referred to the Nakṣatras, was consistent with, and to indirectly established the truth of, such a supposition. Let us see if we can produce similar evidence for establish ing the hypothesis (for it is no better at present) that the year in the old Vedic days began, as stated in the Brahma pas, with the Phalguoi full-moon, and that the winter solstice occurred on that day. On a rough calculation the verbal equinox, most recede two divisional Nakṣatras to make the seasons fall back by one month. If the winter solstice, therefore, occurred in the month of Phalguna, one month • ladia: what it cao teach us? p. 112. in advance of Magha, in the old Vedic days, the vernal oquinox must then have been in Mr̥gaśiras or two Nak shatras in advance of the Kritlikas. Taking the data given in the Ved&nga Jyotiṣa as his basis, the late Krishậa Shastri Godbole has thus calculated* the position of the four cardinal points of the ecliptic, when the winter solstice, as stated in the Brāhmaṇas, occurred on the full-moon day in the month of Phālguna (1) The winter solstice in 3° 20’ of the divisional Ullarā Bhādrapada ; (2) The verbal equinox in the beginning of Ardra; (3) The summer solstice in 10° of Uttara Phalgunī; and (1) The autumnal equinox in the middle of Mula ; or giving up the system of reckoning by the divisional por tions of the Zodiac, we have, roughly speaking, the winter solstice quite near the asterism of Uttara Bhādrapada, the verpal equinox between the head and the right shoulder of Orion or about 30 east of Mr̥gaśiras, the summer sol stice at a distance of within 2° east of Uttara Phalguni, and the autumnal equinox about 5° east of the asterism of Mūla. If we suppose the vernal equinox to coincide with Mr̥gaśiras, the three other cardinal points are brought Dearer to the fixed asterisms, and this appears to be the more probable position of the equinoxes and the solstices in those days. But without entering into these details, it will be evident from this that when the winter solstice fell on the Phalguni full-moon the verbal equinox must be very acar the asterism of Mr̥gaśiras or two Nakṣatras in advance of the Krittikas. We have now to see what evidence there is in the Vedic works from which this old position of the four principal points in the ecliptic may be established. • Sec his essay on the Antiquity of the Vedas, p. 19. IV.] AGRAHAYANA. There appears to be no express passage in the Vedic works, which states that Mr̥gaśiras, like the Kr̥ttikās was ever the mouth of the Nakṣatras. But what is so lost may still be discovered, in the words of Prof. Max Mūller, “hidden in the secret drawers of language.” Mr̥gaśiras may not be specifically described as the first of the Naksha tras ; but the word āgrahấyani which Amarsipha (i. 3. 23), gives as a synonym for Mr̥gaśiras, and which supplies, according to Pānipi, a derivative word for the month of Margashirsha tells the same tale. Agrahayani literally means “commencing the year ;” and the question is how did the Nakṣatra come to be so called? In explaining the forma tion of this word all native lexicographers begin by assuming that the full-moon in the month of Mārgashirsha was the first night of the year, hence called Agrahīyanī, and as this full-moon occurred in the month of Margashirsha the month itself was called Agrahuyanika. There is no gram matical inconsistency so far. But when these lexicographers further tell us that the Nakṣatra itself was called Agrahayani, as Amarsiuha has done, because the full-moon in the vicinity of that Nakṣatra commenced the year in old days, one feels that there is something wrong in this explanation. The ordi. nary course is to name the full-moon or any other day after the Nakshaira, as Chaitri, Pauṣam, Paushi, &c (Pau, iv. 2, 3), while in the present case the order is reversed and the Nakṣatra, we are told, is named after the full moon. It is true that the lexicographers were, to a certain extent, • Sce Bhanu Dīkṣita’s commentary on Amar, i. 3, 23. He ex. plains the word thus :-) FITHREAT: 1 Ausradara adatt: 1 प्रशायण् । पूर्णपदादिति णस्वम् । भाग्रहायणी पौर्णमासी । तयोगाचक्षणमपि 40 authority for this correct. Turning The word Aemis compelled to adapt such a course, as they could not other. wise explain why Agrahdyani, a term usually denoting a full-moon night, should have been given as a syaonym for the Nakṣatra of Mr̥gaśiras by Amarsinha. But what. ever their motive, we have now to see if their explanations as well as the statement in Amara, are correct. Turning to Panini we find no authority for this converse process. The word Agrahayant occurs in Papini iv. 2, 92, which lays down the rule that the derivative names of months are formed from Agrahayani and Ashvattha, by the addition of thak,* as a necessary termination ; and this gives us the words Agrahayanika and Ashuatthika for the months of Margashirsha and āshvina. Now in the previous sātra (iv. 2. 21) Papini states that the names of the months are derived from the names of the full-moon days that occur in those months. It appears, therefore, that he understood Agrahayani to mean the full-moon and not the Nakṣatra of Mr̥gaśiras. The word Agrahayani occurs thrice in Panini (iv. 2. 22 ; 3. 50; and v. 4. 110) and in all places it denotes the full. moon day. It is not, however, clear whether Pāṇini treated it as a word derived in the same magner as Chaitri, &c. If we, however, rely on analogy there is every reason to hold that Agrahdyani, like Kārtiki and Phalguni, inay have heen derived from A grahayana, and that this may originally be the name of the Nakṣatra of Mpigashiras. This supposition derives support from the fact that if, like Amarsiaha, we take Ägrahayant as • The notras of Papini referred to in this discussion are not gw ax: (iv. 2. 3), arftantiorare la numaru (iv. 2. 21), 19. gurmann (iv.2. 22.), potem (iv. 1. 11.) and animam 75 IV.) AGRAHÄYANA synonymous with the Nakṣatra of Mr̥gaśiras and follow the native grammarians in deriving this name of the Nak. shatra from that of the full-moon, it is very difficult to account for the initial long vowel in Agrahdyant. All lexicographers derive the word from Agra and Hāyana combined in a Bahuvrīhi compound and afterwards adding the feminine termination ; thus Agra t hayana + f. But the feminine termination cannot be added without a pre vious suffix (an) which also gives the initial long vowel, as t is not a general feminine suffix, but is only used in special cases. We cannot get this an by Panini iv., 2. 3, as Agrahiyana is not the name of a Nakṣatra according to Amarsinha. Various suggestions have, therefore, been made to account for the initial long vowel. Bhattoji suggasts that we should obtain the long vowel by including Agra. hayaṇa in the Prajoādi list (Pan, v. 4. 38); but in the Ganapatha, the list is not said to be a specimen list’,. aor is the word Agrahīyana specifically included in the list there given. Bochtlingk and Roth in their dictionary obtain the long vowel by Pan. v. 4. 36 ; but here 36 may probably be a misprint for 38. Taranatha in his Vachas patya obtains the long vowel by Panini v. 2. 102, Vartika 1; but Jyotsoidi is not again expressly said to be a ‘specimen ‘ist.’ Bhānu Dīkṣita, the son of Bhattoji, in his commentary on Amarat adopts his father’s view and refutes that of Mukuta. The latter obtains the initial long vowel from the very fact that the word itself is so pronounced by Panini in iv. 2. 32 ; but this gives us Agrahayani as a ready made # wafuqu, meaning that the list is aot exhaustive.

• See p. 63 of the Bombay Ed. of Bhiau Dīkṣita’: som, on Aman. 7- word at once, and Mukuta had to assigo some reason why the word should have been again included in the Gauradi list in Pan. iv. 1. 41. Mukuta’s explanation is that Pāṇini thereby intends to show that the feminine termination in Agrahayani is not dropped in compounds. But Bhānu Dīkṣita replies by observing that the Gauradi list was gever intended for the purpose and that as regards the accent we can get it otherwise. Bhanu Dīkṣita’s own explanation or that of his father Bhattoji also dispenses with the pecessity of including the word in the Gauridi list as they obtain the feminine suffix ī by Pan. iv. 1. 15; and so in replying to Mukuta he observes at the end that the “inclusion of the word in the Gauradi list is quežtionable.” Thus if we suppose Amarsinha to be correct and accept either Bhattoji’s or Mukuta’s derivation of igrahiyanī we shall have to hold that the word in question was either wrongly included or subsequently inserted in the Gauradi list and that Pāṇini, who knew the wurd, forgot to insert it in the Prajnādi or the Jyotsnādi list. Both the explana. tions are again open to the objection that in this instance the Nakṣatra is named after the full-moon as against the usual method given by Pānini in iv, 2, 3, The whole of this difficulty, however, vanishes, if we give up the notion, that the full-moon night in the month of Mārgashīrṣa might have commenced the year at one time and that the name of the Nakshaira as given by Amara must be derived from the name of the full-moon. There is no express authority in the Vedic works to support such a theory and a closer examination of Pāṇini’s sūtras points to the same conclusion Months in the Hindu calendar receive their names from the full-moon nights occuring in them ; and the characteristics of a month are the same as IV.] AGRAHAYANA. 77 those of the full-moon night after which it is named. If the full-moon night in Mārgashirsha was, therefore, ever the new-year’s night then the month itself would have come to be properly called the first month of the year. In other words the month of Margashirsha would itself, in that case, be called Agrahiyana Boehtlingk and Roth do interpret the word āgrahāyaṇa in this way on the authority of Shab da-kalpa-druma and Taranatha has done the same probably on the same authority, for none quotes any passage where the word is so used. Now if Agrahāyna ever meant the month of Margashirsha the word would also assume the form āgrahāyaṇa on the ground given above by Bhattoji ;* and we shall have āgrahāyaṇa as another name of the month of Margashirsha. The word occurs in the Gauradi list ( Pan. iv, 1. 41 ), and therefore must be taken to have been known to Pāṇini. What did he understand it to mean? There is strong ground to hold that he could not have understood it to mean the month of Margashirasha. For if we suppose that in Pāṇini’s times there were two forms of the word in this sense Agrahủyana and Agrahi yanika-he would have rather mentioned Agrahayani in iv. 2. 23,+ along with Chaitri, &c., which gives the double forma Chaitra and Chaitrika and not with Ashvatia in iv. 2. 22as he has now done. We may, therefore, infer that Agrahi. yanika was the only sanctioned form of the word to denote the Bhanu Dīkṣita, ia his commentary on Amara i. 4. 84. gives Agraharjana as a synonym for Margashirsha on the authority of Purushottama and obtains the initial long vowel by including the word in the Jyotsnadi iist,
• The sutras are-29cmperiu (iv. 2. 22) anar 918 quien nixo: (iv. 2. 23). As the sutras follow each other it is natural to suppose that Agrandyani, if it gave rise to two forms Mould have beco included in the second sutra. month of Margashirsha in Papini’s time. This means that Pipini did not know of the theory which makes the year commence with the Margashirshi full-moon night or the month of Margashirsha (āgrahāyaṇa ). If so, he could not have derived the word Agrahayani for the full-moon night directly by taking it to be a Bahuvrīhi compound.* The only other alternative is to derive it as we derive Chaitri and other similar words, and I think this is what Piṇini meant. For if he had been aware of any such difficulty in the formation of Agrahayani-word thrice used by him.–and especially in in oblaining the initial long vowel as Bhattoji and olhers have felt by taking it to be a Bahuvsihi compound, he would have naturally noticed it himself. I therefore conclude that Pāṇini derived Agrahayani from āgrahāyaṇa, as the name of a Nakṣatra. Ia this case we can derive Agrahit yani in a simple and easy manner. For by Pāṇini v. 2.3, we get the initial long vowel, when derivative words are formed from the names of the Nakṣatras to express time; we now want the feminine suffix l, and though this could have been obtained by Pān, iv. 1. 15, yet, for accentual purposes, it may be consi. dered as provided for by the inclusion of the word Agraha yanat in the Gauradi list in Pan. iv. 1. 41. We can thus derive the word in the ordinary way, and unless we have strong grounds to maintain that it was really the full-moon night and not the Nakṣatra, which commenced the year, we shall not be justified in accepting unusual derivations and explanations of these words. It is true that the word * For then the tull-moon night, and hence the month, would itself be the commencement of the year. # Doubts have been raised as to the exact form of the word mentioned in the Gauradi list, and Bhanu Dīkṣita goes so far as to question whether the word was really included in tbe liat by Piniai. 79 IV.] AGRAHAYANA. Agrahayano as denoting a Nakṣatra is now lost and Amarasinha only gives Āgrahayani and not āgrahāyaṇa as a synonym for the Nakṣatra of Mr̥gaśiras. But I shall presently show that Amarasinha is not alone in misconceiving the meaning of these old words. The theory that the Mar gashirshi full-moon was the first night of the year, has been the source of many other errors in later literature ; but before examining these it was necessary to show how the theory has distorted the natural meaning and derivation of the very words on which it appears to have been based. As remarked above if there be aay express or cogent autho rity to support the theory we might connive at the etymo. logical difficulties, but if it be found that the theory is inconsistent with many other facts, or leads, as I shall pre sently show, to absurd results, the etymological distortions wonld afford us an additional ground for rejecting it. We shall now examine in detail the theory that the full. moon night in Mārgashīrṣa was once the first night of the year. So far as I am aware there is no express authority for such an hypothesis except the statement in the Bhagavad. Gilā ( x, 35 ) where Krishna lells Arjuna that he, Krishṇa, is " Margashirsha of the months (and), Vasanta of the seasons," ānandagiri in his gloss on Shankara’s Bhashya upon the Gitā, observes that Margashirsha is here specially selected because it is a month of plenty. But the reason does not appear to be either sufficient or satisfactory; for the next sentence, and in fact the whole context, shows that Margashirsha was here in. teaded to be the first of the inonths. The principle com. mentators on the Gitā are too philosophical lo notice this point, but in a commentary written by Sūrya Paadit, an astro nomer, entitled the Paramartha-prapa, I find that he explains the statement on the ground that Margashirsha was otherwise called Agrahayanika, and the latter word denotes that the full moon night in this month was the first night of the year. If we accept this explanation, and no other plausible one is forth. coming, it appears that this statement in the Bhagavad-Gītā was based on an etymolcgical misconception of the meaning of the term Agrahayanika; and later writers like Amarasinha and Vāgbhata,t simply followed the Gitā in assigning the same position to the month of Mārgashīrsha. We may, there. fore treat all these statements as coming from one source and representing a certain period of the Sanskrit literature, when native scholars first misconceived the primary meaning of Agrahayanika. I have already shown that, properly under stood, the etymology of the word gives little room for such a misconception. Agrahiyanika is really a derivative word and cannot therefore mean that the month denoted by it was the first in the year just as Jyeshtha does not mean the eldest month. But it appears that the tradition about Mr̥gaśiras (Agrahāyana) ever being the first of the Naksha. tras, was completely lost in those days, and native scholars * The commentary is printed at Poona. The words in the original are-og miatt: goalha a oferafgaraltmātala. grauiican TINITI B iqui TELİ ATACIquft i ara garagraforas इति मार्गशीर्षनाम । अतोऽस्य मासस्य मुल्यस्वाद्विभूतिमत्वम् । Apaadagiri’s explanation be correct then the Gita is not opposed to deriviag Agrahāyaṇī from āgrahāyaṇa, the name of a Nakabatra, and the whole of the above discussion would be unnecessary.
• Vāgbhata, in his larger work entitled Ashtangasangraha, otherwise called Vsiddha Vāgbheta, enumerates the months is be. gianing with Margashirsha, lo i, 4 of the work the Uttarāyaṇa is snid to commence with Magha, while Margasbirsha is mentioned first amongst the months there enumerated, much after the same way as Amara has done in i. 4, 13 and 14, IV.] AGRAHẦYANA. 81 believed, on what they considered to be sound etymological grounds that the month and not the Nakṣatra was the com. mencement of the year. Once started and embodied in the Gitā, the theory gained an easy and rapid currency amongst native scholars, all of whom naturally felt bound to shape their views accordingly. And not only literary scholars, but astronomers appear to have done the same. lo old astronomical works the year commenced with the winter solstice and the first month of the year meant the first month of the Uttariyaṇa which commenced with this solstice. If then the Margashirshi full moon was said to be the first nighl of the year, an as. tronomer would naturally understand such statement to mean that the winter solstice fell on the full-moon day of Mārgashirsha. Now if we suppose that the Margashirshi full-moon was thus the night of the winter solstice, it would mean that the full moon on that day happened to be near the asterism of Mr̥gaśiras. With the sun at the winter solstice, the moon, to be full, must be near the summer solstice ; and therefore the summer solstice must have then coincided with the asterism of Mr̥gaśiras. The vernal equinox is 90° behind the summer solstice ; and if Mriga shiras coincided with the latter, the vernal equinox would then be 90° behind the asterisin of Mr̥gaśiras. This is the only logical and mathernatical conclusion possible if we accept the theory that the full-moon night in Marga. shirsha was the first night of the year at the winter solstice. And what does it mean? It means a clear mathematical absurdity to us, though older astronomers, not realizing its full effect, invented an explanation to account for it. The Sūrya Siddhānta (viii. 2. 9) gives 63• as the polar longitude of Mr̥gaśiras, counting from Revati. Now if the vernai equinox was 90° behind the asterism of Mr̥gaśiras, it was 90°-63° 27° behind the asterism of Revatil. The Vedic. works, on the other hand, mention the Krillikās as the first of the Nakṣatras, and the winter solstice is shewn to have then occurred in the month of Magha. This means that the verbal equinox must be placed at least 26° 40’, or Dearly 27 in front of Revati. Now imagine the position of the lodian astronomer, who could neither reject the statement in the Vedic works, nor the one in the Bhagvad Gita. Both were sacred and unquestionable texts, and it would be no wonder if, to his great relief, he got over the difficulty by proposing a libration of the equinoxes, 27° on either side of Revati ! The hypothesis is now given up by modern astronomers as mathematically incorrect ; but no reason has yet been as signed why it found place in the Hindu astronomy. A theory may be erroneons, but even an erroneous theory cannot become prevalent without a good cause. It has been suggested by Bentley and approved by Prof. Whitney t, that the limits of the libration might have been determined by the fact that the earliest recorded Hindu year had been made to begin when the sun entered the asterism of Krite tika or 26° 40’ in front of Rerati. But this alone is not enough to suggest the theory of libration. For, unless the Hindu astronomer had grounds to him conclusive and … * This may imply that the Sūrya Siddhānta was in existence at the time when the libration theory was started. I think it was. But it bas been suggested that the libration theory might have been sub. sequently inserted thereinsce Whitney’s Sur. Sid., p. 104 1. It is not, however, necessary to make any supposition regarding the ex. isteace of the surya Siddhānta at this time, as almout all other Siddhāntar give the same bhoga, vix.. 69° for Mr̥gaśiras. Sec Colebrooke’s Ess ys, Volii., p. 323 (table). See Sūrya Siddhānta, p. 103. IV.] AGRAHẦYANA. 83 otherwise inexplicable–for holding that the vernal equinox fell 37° on each side of Revati, he would not have proposed the libration of the equinoxes. So far as I know no such grounds have been yet discovered by modern scholars, and if the explanation given above accounts for the theory in all its details, I see no reason why it should not be accepted as a probable explanation. Perhaps, it may be asked, what grounds I have to suppose that the astronomers combined the two statements declaring that Māgha and Margashirsha were both, each in its turo, the first months of the year, and so oblained the theory of the libration of the equinoxes, This is, however, not the place to go fully into this discussion ; for all that I am bound to prove, as far as the present inquiry is concerned, is that if we accept the theory that the Marga shirsha full moon was ever the new-year’s night, it leads us to an absurd conclusion, and this is evident from the above whether it does or does not give the real explanation of the libration theory. I may, however, remark that when we actually find Ainarasipha first stating (i. 4. 13) that “seasons comprise two months each beginning with Māgha, and three such seasons make au ayana," and then in the very next verse enumerating the months commencing with Margashir sha; there is nothing extraordinary in the supposition that some Hindu astronomers mignt have similarly atlempted to reconcile what were then regarded as the two beginnings of the year, by placing the statements in juxtaposition and pushing them to their logical conclusions. On the contrary, I should have been surprised if the Hindu astronomers had not done 80. But, apart from the origin of the libration theory, I think it is clear that, if we accept that the Margashirsha full-moon was ever a new-year’s night, in the sense that the winter solstice occurred at that time, we are inevitably landed on an absurdity. By the ordinary proces of reductio ad absurdum, we are thus compelled to abandon the theory that the full moon in Mārgashīrṣa once began the year at the winter solstice, Native scholars and astronomers, who did not realize the absurdity, accepted the theory of the libra. tion of the equinoxes as the only possible way of reconciling the two statements in their sacred books. We now know that the equinox cannot be placed 27° behind Revati, unless it be either in the beginning of the present cycle of the precession of the equinoxes or about 600 years hereafter, and we should have no difficulty in rejecting the premises that give us such a conclusion. Perhaps it may be urged that the full-moon night in Mārgashīrṣa might have been called the new-year’s night in some other sense.* Yes, it *The only other explanation, I know of, is that given by Bentley in his Historical Survey of Hindu Astronomy, pp. 5-27. Bentley divides the zodiac into 27 lunar mansions, beginning with śraviṣṭhā in the winter solstice, as in the Vedinga Jyotiṣa. Then he divides it again into 12 tropical mootbs beginning with Magha. The beginn. ing of Magha and the divisional Shravishtnā thus coincide at this time, Now the beginning of each month must fall back owing to the precession of the equinoxes; and in thus receding if the beginn ing of any month coincided with any fixed lunar mansion, on the 6th lunar day, the month, says Bentley, was made to commence the year! But what authority is there in native astronomical works for auch an elaborate and artificial thcory to determine the commence. mcat of the sear; Native astronomers are surely expected to know better the theory on which they commenced their year. Then, according to Bentley’s calculation , Ashvina was the first month in 1192 B. C. and Kartika in 945 B, C. But there is no evidence whatso ever in the Sanskrit literature to corroborate thesc results. Again why should either of these months not have been called Agrahayanika? Bentley supposes that this method was in force till IV.] AGRAHAYANA. might be; but what evidence is there that any native scholars ever thought of it? None that I know of. There are only two beginnings of the year known in ancient Hindu literature. I have shown that the winter solstice could not have occurred on the full-moon in Margashirsha, and by the same method we can prove the improbability of the verual equinox falling on that day. For if we suppose the Mārgashirsha full-moon to be the new-year’s oight, in the sense that the vernal equinox occurred on that date, we must make the asterism, of Abhijit coincide with the vernal equinox. This gives us about 20,000 years B. C. for the period when these positions could have been true. The author of the Bhagavata Purana appears to have had some such theory in his mind when he paraphrased (xi. 16. 27) the above quoted verse in the Gita by “I am Mārgashīrṣa of the months, Abhijit of the Nakṣatras,” and the late Krishna Shastri Godbole took this statement for a record of a real tradition! This illustrates the danger of relying on traditions in later books, without tracing them to their source in the oldest works we possess. We must therefore rise above these etymological spe culations of the native scholars of what Prof. Max Mūller once called the Renaissance period of the Sanskrit literaturo. It is these speculations that have given us the libration theory 538 A, D.; if so, why should Pausha not become Agrahayanika instead of Margashirsha, in 451 B, C.? Bentley’s unsupported specula. tiou must, therefore, be rejected as imaginary. It gives no reason why Margashirsha, the third of the suveral months which, according to his theory, would successively begin the year from 1193 B, C. to 638 A. D., should alone have been called Agruhiyanika and nono whatever why the Nakṣatra should be called Tyrahaymi contrary to the usual rule, according to which the word should denote the full. moon day. and interrupted the tradition of āgrahāyaṇa coming down to us intact. It is difficult to say how these etymological speculations originaled. Perhaps the word Agrahayanika was in course of time corrupted by ponuser into Agrahīyana on the analogy of Chaitra and Chaitrika, and such corruption gave rise to these speculations, or it might be that the year locally commenced with Mārgashirsha in certain provinces, and attempts were made to find an authority tor such custom in the etymological meaning of the word Agrahūganika. It appears to me more probable, however, that the old tradi tion about the Nakṣatra gradually got connected with the month which was named after it as in the case of Kartika, whose first rank amongst months is suggested by Prof. Whitney “as due to the ancient position of the Kr̥ttikās as the first among the lunar mansions.”* This is very likely if, as shown below, the word Agrahayani was ever used to denole both the Nakṣatra and the full-moon. But whatever the origin, the speculation was there safe under the authority and prestige of the Bhagavad Gitā, and Amarasinha, who appears to have been not wholly free from the influence of such theories, naturally put down Agrahāyani instead of āgrahāyaṇa, as the name of the Mr̥gaśiras, especially as the latter word, Agrahūyana, was not expressly mentioned by Pāṇini. Later lexicographers, who considered Amara and especially the Gitā to be above error, attempted to reconcile Amara’s statement with the system of Panioi by unusual derivations, and astronomers appear to have vied with them in mathematically reconciling the real and the imaginary beginnings of the year! We must, therefore, set aside all these theories and go back to the purer times of Pāṇini, to * See his Sūrya Sidbhanta, p. 271 (xiv. 16 11.) IV.) AGRAHẦYANA. 87 determine what was the real name of the Nakṣatra. I have already shown that Panini knew.the word Agrahityana and also that he could not have understood it to mean the month of Mārgashirsha. It is, therefore, evident that he used it as a derivative from āgrahāyaṇa in the sense of time as given in Pānini iv. 2. 3. If so, he considered Agrahāyana to be a name of the Nakṣatra of Mr̥gaśiras, Amarsipha’s Agrandyani is, therefore, either an error or a feminine adjective or the tirê of Mr̥gaśiras meaning exactly the same thing as Agrahūyana ; thus Agrahīyana = Agrahiyana (Pan. v. 4. 38), āgrahāyaṇa +i (Pan, iv. 1. 15)= Agrahayani." In supp rt of this derivation, may bo cited the fact that Mr̥gaśiras was once considered to be a leminine word. Mukuta and Bhanu Dīkṣita † both quote, Bopālita who gives the neuter and the feminine forms of Mr̥gaśiras. Rāmani ha in his Trikānda Viveka, gives a quotation from Rabhasa and another from a Smriti to the same effect. If the word Mr̥gaśiras was thus ever used in the feminine gender, the feminine adjective Agraharani might have been used as a synonym for the same, not because it was the name of the full-moon, but because the asterism was spoken of in the feminine gender. This may account for the fact why Amarasinha lays particular stress on this point. * Th’s is open to the objection that we have to include Agra. ndyana in the Prajnadi list. t Amara i, 9, 23. Bhanu Dīkṣita’s commentary is printed in Bombay and Mukuta’s and Kshfrasvānin’s are published in Anundoram Borooah’s unfortunately incomplete edition of Aniara’s lexicon. See extracts froon Rimanātha’s com, in Anundoram Borooah’s publication, p. 119. For says he “Mrigashirsham (is) Mr̥gaśiras ; Agrahayani (is used) to denote the very same*;" thus implying that a feminine word is used to denote what he supposed might be regarded only in the neuter gender. This is, indeed, a plau sible explanation. It not only absolves Amarasinha from the charge of having given a wrong, or at least a distorted, word, but makes him warn his readers not lo misunderstand the word Agrahayani for the full-moon night-ā mistake into which almost all his commentators have, however, unfortu nately fallen. It may further explain why instead of the Nakṣatra, the full-moon day (both of which were on this thecry denoted by the same word Agrhāyani) came to be regarded as the first night of the year and so gave rise to later speculations. But the fact that Amarasinha mentions Marga. shirsha first amongst the months shows that he was not allo gether free from the influence of the speculative theory; and the explanation above stated must therefore be accepted with caution. But whatever explanations we may adopt to defend Amara, I think it will be plain from the above thal, so far as our purpose is concerned, we must reject the explanations of the commentators of Amara, who derive the name of the Nakṣatra, as given by Amara, from Agruhayani, the name of the full moon. After this we may either suppose Agra hāyaṇa or Agrahuyani, or Agrahīyanī to be the name of the Nakṣatra, for in every case the difference consists only in the form and gender and not in the derivation, or the meaning of the word. Thus understood Agrahayani or Agradyana both give us the same meaning, viz., that the year was in the jront of the Nakṣatra of Mr̥gaśiras; or in other * Thus:- fi mihiEAHararigolt | Why TEAT? IV.) AGRAHAYANA. words commenced with it. If what I have said above is enough to prove this, I do not care to insist on a particular form, whether masculine, femioine, or neuter, of Agrahīyana which as an adjective is the basis of all such forms. With this reservation, I may, I think, in what follows use the word Agrahayaṇa to dencte the Nakṣatra of Mr̥gaśiras and as evidencing the circumstance that it was so called because it was the first Nakṣatra in the year, Corresponding to the winter solstice in Phālguna, we thus have the asterism of Mr̥gaśiras or āgrahāyaṇa to commence the year from the vernal equinox, much after the same manner as the Kritlikās were said to be the mouth of the Nakṣatras when the winter solstice fell in the month of Māgha. The express statement in the Brāhmaṇas that the Phālgunī full-moon commenced the year from, as I have previously shown, the winter solstice, is thus borne out by the tradition which we find treasured up in Agrahīyani. Now if the vernal equinox was near the asterism of Mr̥gaśiras the autumnal equinox would be in Mùla. It has been inge niously suggested by Bentley that this name signifying “root or origin" may have been given to the Nakṣatra because it was once the first amongst the asterisms and he has actually given a list of the Nakṣatras beginning with Mula ; but he does not appear to have used it except to show that when one of the twenty-eight Nakṣatraz was dropped the divisional Jyeṣthā and Mūla both began from the same fixed point in the heavens,ma position which gives him the vernal equinox in the beginning of the Zodiacal portion of the Kr̥llikas. I have already shown that we cannot suppose that the old Vedic priests made observations of imaginary lines in the heavens, and Bentley’s explanation which entirely depends on the mathematical divisions of the Zodiac is not therefore satisfactory. Nor can I accept Prof. Whitney’s suggestion that Mala “may perhaps have been so named from its beiog considerably the lowest or farthest to the southward of the whole series of asterisms and hence capable of being looked upon as the root of all the asterisms.”* I should rather suggest that Mūla was so called because its acronycal vising marked the commencement of the year at the time when the verbal equinox was near Mr̥gaśiras and the winter solstice fell on the Phāgunī full-moon, Agrahayuna setting with the sun in the west and Mūla rising in the cast then marked the beginning of the year, and this position of Mūla is likely to be especially noted as the heliacal rising and secu ting of a star, and so of Agruhayana, is difficult to be accurate ly watched. The etymological meaning of Mūla may thus be said to supply a sort of corroborative evicience for placing the vernal equinox in Mr̥gaśiras though, in absence of other strong grounds, it is of no better value than a siini. lar conjecture of Bentley about the name Vishakhi, noliced in the last chapter. I have already mentioned before that the year was divided into two ayanas, the northern and the southern, and that though originally the northern ayana indicated the passage of the sun to the north of the equator yet it after. wards came to indicate the passage of the sun srom the winter to the summer solstice. I have also stated that after this change was made all the attributes of the older ayanas must have been gradually transferred to the new ones, though the old division was concurrently kept up; and that the new ideas were formed solely with reference to the sol * Bee bis Sūrya Siddhiata, p. 194. 91 IV.] AGRAHẦYANA. stitial division of the year. Thus the Pitr̥yaya during which time the sun in older times went down the equator must hive come to be regarded, for some purposes at least. as commencing from the summer solstice. With the winter solstice occurring on the Phālguni full-moon day, we shall have the summer solstice on the Bhadrapadi full-moon, so that the dark half of Bhādrapada was the first fortnight in the Pitr̥yāda, understood as commencing on the summer solstice. Il was thus pre-eminently the fortnight of the pitr̥s or the manes; and to this day, every Hindu celebrates ihe feast to the manes in this fortoight. As far as I know no reason has yet been advanced why the dark half of Bhādrapada should be called the fortnight of the pisis (pitr̥ pakṣi) and why special feasts to the manes should be ordainod at this parti. cular period of the year. With the winter solstice in the asterism of Uttara Bhādrapada, that is when it occurred on the Phālgunī full-moon, the matter is simply and satisfactorily explained. For then the Dakshiṇāyana or summer solstice commenced on the dark haif of Bhādrapada and this fortnight therefore naturally became the first fortnight in the ayanu of the manes. * And not only the Hindus but the Parsis celebrate their feast lo the manes at the same time. The coincidence is *This explanation implies that the feast to the manes became per. manently fixed at this time ; and there is nothing improbable in it, For as the Parsis hold similar feasts on corresponding days we must suppose that these feasts became fixed long before the Parsis and the Indians separated. When the vernal cquinox receded to the Křittikds the feasts still continued to be celebrated in the dark half of Bhai/ra pada. But though the priests could not alter the days of these feasts, yet in assigning deities to the Nakṣatras they recog. Qised the change by making pitr̥s preside over Magha at the summer solstice, important inasmuch as we are here dealing with periods of antiquity when the Indian, the Iranian, and Hellenic Aryas must have lived together, and if our theory is correct it is sure to he corroborated by the customs, practices, and tradi. tions of the other two sections of the Aryan race. I shall in the next two chapters show that there is ample independent evidence of this kind coofirmatory of the theory that Mriga shiras commenced the equinoctial year in those early days. At present I shall only refer to the conclusions of Dr. Geiger as to the nature of what he calls the primitive or the oldest Avesta calendar. He takes madhyaryo-which literally means bol ‘mid-winter,’ but ‘mid-year as his basis and concludes that in the primitive Avesta calendar the year commenced with the summer solstice.* This is just what we should expect. The Indian Aryans commenced their year from the winter solstice or the beginning of the Uttarāyaṇa and the Iranians, who in such matters always took a diamatrically opposite view, Daturally commenced it with the summer solstice the begin ping of the Dakshiṇayana, thus bringiog the Bruma (or the winter solstice) in the middle of the year. But the coinci dence does not stop here ; and in the light of the old Indian calendar we are in a position to explain some difficult points in the primitive Avesta calendar. The Hindu pitr̥-paksha or the fortnight of the manes commenced with the summer solstice, while the Iranians celebrated their feasts to the manes just at the same time. The first month in their calendar was called Fravashinam or the month of the manęs, and, according to the primitive calendar determined by See Dr. Geiger’s Civilization of the Eastern Iranians ja Ancient Times, translated by Darab Dastur Pheshtotan Sanjana, Vol. 1.1 P. 153. ich of Tistrya, which is calendar was Sirius in Bhadrapanlendar Morih Naksuis why IV.) AGRAHẢYANA. 93 Dr. Geiger, this first month, whem the feasts to the manes were celebrated, * began with the summer solstice. Again the fourth month of the Avesta calendar was Tishtryehe or the month of Tistrya, which has been identified with the star Sirius. Counting with Bhādrapada in the summer solstice, the fourth month in the Hindu calendar would be Mārgashir sha or the month of Mr̥gaśiras, which Nakṣatra is quite near Sirius. We can now also easily explain why Dathusho should have been dedicated to the Creator. Begin ning with Fravashinam in the suinmer solstice, Dathusho begins exactly at the vernal equinox, and as marking the revival of nature it was properly dedicated to the Creator. Roth again was partially correct when he imagined that Dathusho must have once commenced the year inasmuch as it was dedicated to the Creator Ahuramazda. For from the old Hiodu calendar we see that the vernal equinox was also a beginning of the year. In the primitive Avesta calendar we can thus discover the traces of the year, begia. ning with the vernal equinox and also from the summer solstice (in opposition to the Hindu winter solstice) in Bhādrapada, the month of the manes. These coincidences, especially about the month of the manes, cannot be said to be merely accidental. The worshippers of Ahuramazda * The last five days of the old year and the Arst Ave days of the new year are called “Fravardig an" days. “During these tea days the frolars (fravashi or fravarti) the spiritual representatives of the deceased are believed to come to the houses" of men on the earth. Sec Dr. Haug’s Essays on the Parsis, p. 225 pute. At pre sent the Hindu feasts extend over the whole of the fortnight. We, however, find an alternative period recorded in the Nirnaya Sindhu, which states that the feasts may extend over a fortnight, ten days or five days! changed the commencement of the year from the winter to the summer solstice, but as observed by Roth “a sacred and solemo feast could not be removed from its place in the year,” * and this affords therefore a comparatively reliable ground to identify the Avesta and the Vedic year. We find nothing in the Avesta to explain why the first month of the year should have been devoted to the manes; but, as observed by Dr. Geiger in respect of the legend of Yama, the know ledge of it might in course of time have been lost to the worshippers of Ahuramazda. We can, however, now easily explain it from the statement in the Vedic works that Phāl guni full-moon was once the new year’s night at the winter solstice. I know that such analogies taken singly are of no great practical value, but when from a consideration of the Vedic literature, we arrive at results, which we then find so similar to those arrived at independently by Zi nd scholars, we may certainly be led to believe that they are not merely accidental. To sum up: Interpreting the passage in the Taittirīya * See Dr. Geiger’s Civ. An, Iran., Vol. l., p. 145. The annual teasts to the manes amongst the Parsis came after the Gahanbars and it is interesting to note that the pitr̥ paksha is defined in the Sūrya Sidhanta, xiv. 3-6, as the period of 16 days after the fuur Shadashitit-mukhas or festivals at intervals of 86 days each tegio ning with Libra. The author of the Sūrya Sidhanta is here evident ly describing some old festivals and as Rashis were in use in his days be fixes the duration of these festivals according to the calendar then in force. The mention of Libra does not therefore prevent us from r garding Shadashiti mulchas as old festivals. But whether Shadashiti mukhas were in any way coonected with the Gabanbars it is not casy to determine in the present state of our . wledge of these festivals. 96 miasa IV:) AGRAHẦYANA. saṁhitā, which states that the “ Phalguni-purna-masa is the roonth of the year," in the natural way suggested by the context and similar other passages in no less than five Brah. manas, to mean that the winter solstice occurred on the Phalgunt full-moon in those days, we find that Mr̥gaśiras has been designated by a name, which, if properly understood, denotes that it was the first of the cycle of the Nakṣatras, thus showing that the vernal equinox was once near it ; that Mula can now be better understood as the star that rose at the beginning of the first night of the equinoctial year; and finally the fortnight after the summer soistice was devoted to the feast of the manes, as the ayana of the pitr̥’s commenced at that point; and that this is fully corroborated by the Parsi mouth of the manes falling in their primitive calendar at the same time. It was on evidence like this that the old position of the Kriitikās was determined, and I do not see why a similar conclusion about Mr̥gaśiras should not be allowed. It is true that no express statement has been cited to show that Mr̥gaśiras commenced the cycle of the Nakṣatras in those days and that some scholars may not consider the Agrahayani sufficient for the purpose. In the following chapters I hope to show that there are a number of other circumstances and even express, texts–which leave little rooin for cautious fears like these.