15 Units of Kāla

CHAPTER XV

Units of Kāla

We shall now turn to the units of time from yuga backwards to muhūrta, leaving aside Manvantara, Kalpa and Pralaya for the moment.

The word ‘yuga’ occurs at least 33 times in the Ṛgveda and appears to have been used in several senses. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. p. 886-890. Two senses stand out as prominent, viz. a short period or a very long period. For the first sense we may cite Ṛg. I. 158. 6 ( ‘Dīrghatamas, the son of Mamatā, became old in the 10th Yuga, he became brahmā high priest and leader of the waters flowing to their goal’.¹ Here yuga cannot mean a period of more than ten years and probably means a period of five years; in Ṛg. III. 26.3 we read ’like a neighing horse by its mother, Vaiśvānara ( Agni) is kindled by the Kuśikas in each yuga’; vide Ṛg. 111.55.18.² In the Vedāṅgajyotiṣa ³ (verses 1 and 5 ) yuga is said to comprise five years. There is nothing to prevent us from taking this sense in the two passages cited from the Ṛgveda. In R̥g. III. 55.18 it is possible to recognize a recondite reference to five year units of time each divided into six seasons. In the Ṛgveda saṁvatsara means a year in several passages such as I. 110. 4, I. 140.2, I. 161. 13, I. 164. 44, VII, 103. 1, 7, 9, X. 190.2. In R̥g. X, 87. 17 we have the derivative form ‘Saṁvatsariṇa’⁴ from saṁvatsara ‘O Agni that observest what men do! May the demon possessing magic devices not partake of the cow’s milk that springs after a year’.

Ṛgveda meaning of yuga

In R̥g. X. 62.2 we have the word parivatsara ’those ancestors that shattered Vala by righteousness and forced out the wealth consisting of cows’ and in R̥g. VII, 103.8 the word ‘parivatsarīṇa’. Saṁvatsara and Parivatsara are two of the five names bestowed on the five years of a yuga in the other saṁhitās. Just as the word yuga was used in several senses even in the Ṛgveda it is quite possible that the words ‘Saṁvatsara’ and ‘parivatsara’ meant simply year and also successive years of a cycle of five years. In the Tai. S. (V. 5. 7. 1–3 ) namaskāra ( salutation) is offered to Rudra with Saṁvatsara, to his bow towards the right with Parivatsara, to his bow behind with Idāvatsara, to the bow towards the north with Iduvatsara and to the bow above with Vatsara. The Vāj. S. ( 27. 45 ) names these five separately with Idāvatsara in place of Iduvatsara; similarly, in Atharva VI. 55.3 salutation is offered to Idāvatsara, Parivatsara and Saṁvatsara. In Tai. Br. (1. 4. 10.1 ⁵ ) Agni, Aditya, Candramas and Vāyu are identified with Saṁvatsara, Parivatsara, Idāvatsara and Anuvatsara and it should be noticed that the four names of years are brought in close relation to the four cāturmāsyas, viz. Vaiśvadeva, Varuṇapraghāsa, Sākamedha and Śunāsiriya. Thus even in the Saṁhitās names (generally five ) are mentioned in a certain fixed order. There is no reason why this should be so unless they formed a fixed series in a cycle. Thibaut in his Grundriss (p. 9) hammers on the fact that sometimes only two or three or four out of the five are mentioned and argues (rather obstinately ) that knowledge of the five year yuga cannot be assumed for the Vedic times. It should be noted that Kauṭilya speaks of the yuga of five Saṁvatsaras and of the insertion of two intercalary months, one at the end of 2 1/2 years and the other at the end of five years. ⁶

The Mahābhārata knows of the yuga of five years ⁷ (in Sabhāparva 11. 38). The Pitāmahasiddhānta,⁸ which is not extant now, stated, according to the Pañcasiddhāntikā of Varāhamihira, that yuga means five years of the Sun and the Moon and that an intercalary month was added after thirty months.

The next question is: what was the extent of the year in the Vedic age. Some R̥k. verses may be cited in this connection. ‘The wheel ⁹ of r̥ta has twelve spokes; it revolves round the heavens; it does never wear out. O Agni! in this ( wheel) seven hundred and twenty sons in pairs abide. Some say that the father (Sun) who sends down water has five feet and twelve forms and remains endowed with fulness in the distant half (part) of heavens while others say that he ( the Sun), the all-seeing, is placed in a lower ( place) that has seven wheels and six spokes; all the worlds abide in the revolving wheel with five spokes; one wheel and twelve rims ( of the wheel) and three naves-who is there that knew these ( thoroughly ); in that ( wheel i.e. year) are placed together three hundred and sixty very unstable nails’ (R̥g. I. 164. 11-13 and 48 ). In these passages the sage poses a riddle or puzzle in very metaphorical and mystic language about a year divided into three, five or six seasons, twelve months, 360 days and 720 days and nights (when calculated separately). It is possible to hold that the wheel of r̥ta means the zodiacal belt divided into twelve parts ( dvādaśāra ). But it is a very difficult matter to keep in view the twelve divisions correctly.

Ṛgveda references to year and its extent

In R̥g. I. 164. 15 it is said ‘They say that the 7th of those that are born together is born of one; there are only six twin sages born of the gods’. Here there is a reference to seasons, six of which have two months each, the 7th has only one ( viz. 13th or intercalary month ) and that the 13th month is not fit for religious rites. The Atharvaveda V. 35. 4 ¹⁰ also states that Saṁvatsara has twelve spokes and the months have 30 spokes. This explains R̥g. I. 164. 11-13 and 48. In the Brāhmaṇas also the year is said to have 360 days and 720 days and nights together; Śatapatha IX. I. 1. 43, Ait. Br. VII. 7 also say the ¹¹ same. We have also to recognize that the Vedic saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas speak of a 13th month that was intercalated. About Varuṇa the Ṛgveda says ¹² ‘He knows the twelve months with their progeny (the days ) and also the month that is added.’ The Tai. S. (IV. 6. 7. 1-2) refers to a year of twelve months and also of 13 months. The Kauṣitaki Br. 19. 2 speaks of the 13th month. The Tai. S. ( I. 14. 4, VI. 5. 3. 4 ) expressly mentions the 13th month called ’ Saṁsarpa or Aṁhaspatya’. It is called Aṁhasaspati in Vaj.s, (VII. 30 and XXII. 31) and Saṁsarpa in Maitrāyaṇi S. III. 12. 13. The Kauṣitaki Brāhmaṇa connects the 13th month with the Śunāsiriya sacrifice¹³. The Maitrāyaṇi saṁhita (I. 10.8) draws a distinction between a r̥tuyāji and cāturmāsya-yāji, the former being one who offers sacrifice thinking ’now Vasanta has started, rainy season has started, śarad has started while the Cāturmāsya-yāji is one who offers sacrifice in view of the 13th month’. [^711a]

[^711a]. ऋतुयाजी वा अन्यश्चातुर्मास्ययाज्यन्यो, यो वसन्तोभूत्प्रावृडभूच्छरदभूदिति यजते स ऋतुयाज्यथ यस्त्रयोदशं मासं सम्पादयति त्रयोदश मासमभियजते स चातुर्मास्ययाजी ॥ मैत्रायणीसंहिता 1.10.8. Vide a very informing paper in Acta Orientalia, vol. IV (1926) pp.124-133 on ’the 13th month in ancient Hindu chronology’ by B. Faddegon of Amsterdam, in which the learned writer tries to explain Maitrāyaṇi saṁhita 1. 10. 8 and certain passages from the Lātyāyana-śrauta-sūtra and the Nidānasūtra which appear to have puzzled Weber and Thibaut.

How and when the month was inserted in the Ṛgveda times or the times of the Tai. S. is not clear. What is clear is that one whole month was added. Therefore, Thibaut overstates the case when he asserts emphatically (Grundriss p. 7) that all Vedic texts agree that the year was exclusively of 360 days. A year in which one month was added ( i.e. of 390 days) was also well-known to the Ṛgvedic Indians. Therefore, in order to explain the facts we have here probably to postulate two calendars, one a purely sacrificial (or religious) of 360 days (12 months of 30 days ) probably inherited by the Vedic Indians from their ancestors about whom we know next to nothing, and another calendar where a month was added in order to bring the year in line with visible astronomical data. It is known that the ancient Egyptians ¹⁴ had an official calendar of 360 days ( 12 months of 30 days each ) plus five days added at end i.e. of 365 days only and no intercalary day was inserted in a year. The result was that the opening day of this calendar would shift back through the solar year until a whole cycle of that year had been completed in 1456 or 1506 years. This calendar called sliding calendar was in use for about 3000 years in Egypt from proto-dynastic period until the Roman period. There was also another calendar against which this sliding calendar moved. A year of 360 days ( divided into 12 months of 30 days each ) was not peculiar to ancient Vedic India nor to ancient Egypt, but played an important role also in Mesopotamia, which had a strictly lunar calendar.

Length of months in Vedic times

The co-existence of months of various lengths for later times is vouchsafed by the Arthaśāstra p. 108 (Sham Shastri’s ed. of 1919 ). A year of 360 days was in later times in India called a Sāvana one (from ‘savana’ meaning extracting of soma juice in a sacrifice ) and a month was added after about 30 months to bring the lunar year (of 354 days) in line with the solar year.

In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (II. 1. 3. 2.) ¹⁵ the Sun’s apparent passage for six months in the north and for six months in the south is referred to, though the word ayana is not employed in this passage. The word ‘ayana’ occurs in the sense of ‘motion or path’ in the Ṛgveda (āyan-n-āpo ayanam-icchamānāḥ, R̥g. III. 33.7). Uttarāyaṇa and Dakṣiṇāyana in later literature mean no more than the sun’s ( apparent) motion or path in the northern celestial sphere and in the southern sphere respectively. The Sun’s movement in the north for six months and in the south for six months is mentioned in Br. Up. VI. 2. 15-16 also. Thibaut (Grundriss p. 10 para 6 ) cites Kauṣitaki Br. 19. 3 as stating that the Sun stands still after it has gone for six months towards the south in order to turn again to the north and then observes that no one has a right to assume, from this statement in the Kauṣitaki ¹⁶ Br. that for six months the Sun goes north or south, that the halves of the year are to be understood. What Thibaut is driving at is not clear to me. We have in this passage six months passages of the Sun in the north and also in the south. A year has ordinarily only twelve months. Therefore it must be assumed that halves of a year are meant. Thibaut does not explain what part of the year these six months in the north and south correspond to. Thibaut is probably swayed by the fact that in the Śatapatha and elsewhere Vasanta, Grīsma and Varṣā are lumped together as the seasons (rtus ) for the gods but Uttarāyaṇa does not exactly correspond with these three stus. That may be so, but the rule or maxim is that names are given on the basis of what is principal or eminent (prādhānyena vyapadeśā bhavanti).

Vasanta and Griṣma are important parts of Uttarāyaṇa; therefore, by association with these two and for the sake of symmetry varṣā is also held to be a ṛtu for the gods.

As regards the seasons, there are varying statements. In R̥g. I. 15 the word ‘ṛtunā’ occurs several times, but once we have ‘ṛtūn’ also ‘O Indra’ drink Soma according to the seasons from the wealth (i.e. the richly filled vessel) of the brāhmaṇa.’ R̥g. II, 36 and 37 are styled Ṛtavya hymns. The Ṛgveda itself names five seasons, viz. Vasanta (X. 161. 4, X. 90.6), Grīṣma (X. 90.6), Prāvṛs ( VII. 103.3 and 9 ), Śarad (over 25 times, as in II, 12, 11, VII. 66.11, X. 161.4), Hemanta ( X. 161.4), but the R̥g. does not expressly mention Śiśira. Three seasons are metaphorically meant in R̥g. I. 164. 48 and six in R̥g. I, 164. 15. The Atharvaveda ¹⁷ ( VI. 55.2 ) mentions all the six, but not in the usual order. The Ait. Br. says that the year has five ṛtus¹⁸ by putting together Hemanta and Śiśira. The Maitrāyaṇi Sam. in I. 7. 3 speaks of Saṁvatsara as having five ṛtus and again as having six ṛtus and the Śat. Br. (II. 1.3.16 ) says that saṁvatsara comprises six ṛtus. In Śatapatha XII. 8.2.33 the ṛtus are said to be three viz. Griṣma, Varṣa and Hemanta and in the very next passage they are said to be six. There is mention of seven ṛtus in Atharvaveda VI. 61.2. But one should not be puzzled by this. The 7th ṛtu is probably meant to represent the 13th intercalary month as it is expressly mentioned in Atharva. (V.6.4). Thibaut surprisingly asserts that the lists of the names of the seasons are only priestly inventions and the Vedic texts exhibit no practical use for them (Grundriss p. 11). Thibaut appears to be obsessed with the influence of priests and offers no good reasons why the names should be regarded as inventions and not as correctly registering what was current in the then society. In Tai. S.¹⁹ IV. 4.11.1 the six ṛtus with two months for each are mentioned. Vasanta is mentioned as the first of ṛtus (mukham vā etad-ṛtūnāṁ yad-vasantaḥ) in Tai. Br. I. 1.2.6.

Vedic references to seasons

The Śatapatha ²⁰ provides that Vasanta, Griṣma and Varṣā are the seasons of gods, Śarad, Hemanta and Śiśira are seasons of the pitṛs; similarly the bright half of a month, the day and the forenoon of a day are the times for gods and the dark half of a month, the night, the afternoon of a day are the times for pitṛs and it winds up with the prescription that a brāhmaṇa should consecrate the sacred fires in Vasanta, a kṣatriya in Grīṣma and a vaiśya in Śarad. ²¹ At least as early as the edicts of Aśoka the words ‘varṣa’ (which etymologically means ‘rains’) and ‘Saṁvatsara’ are both used in the same sense viz. a year in the Brahmagiri inscription ( vide C.I. I. I. p. 175).

There are Western scholars that deny the knowledge of the planets to the Vedic Indians. But Thibaut (Grundriss p. 6) and Kaye (p. 33 ) both concede that it is inconceivable that the Vedic Indians did not observe and distinguish at least the larger planets in early times, but they contend that the Vedic passages cited as proving knowledge of the planets on the part of Vedic Indians cannot be accepted as evidence of the record of observations about planets and that the mere mention of the number seven or five ( about Ādityas in R̥g. X. 72. 8-9 or oxen ) cannot be relied upon. Both Thibaut and Kaye approach these problems with a peculiar mentality. Their criticism is mainly destructive and has a flavour of special pleading against things and ideas Indian. They hardly ever propose their own explanations of the disputed passages and when they rarely do they do not show how their explanations are more satisfactory than the ones they criticize. One typical case may be cited here. Almost all scholars agree that Kṛttikās are the same as Pleiades; but Kaye (Archaeological survey memoir No. 18 p. 24 and I. A. vol. 50, P. 45 ) appears to doubt this, yet he has not the goodness to say positively what other cluster Kṛttikās stand for and why.

The principal reason for the paucity of references to planets probably is that the cult of the worship of planets that we find well developed in Yāj. I. 295–308 had not yet arisen in Vedic times. At least Bṛhaspati (Jupiter ) appears to be clearly meant in two Vedic verses. ‘Bṛahaspati, ²² first appearing in the highest heaven of the great Luminary ( the Sun), destroyed darkness &c;’ ‘Bṛhaspati, when first appearing, rose in front of Tiṣya (Puṣya ) constellation’. ‘The seven ²³ priests guard the dear and fixed seat of the bird (Agni) along with the five adhvaryus; oxen, going eat, ageless, delight in the east; the gods follow the ordinances of gods’ (R̥g. III. 7.7.). Here the (five) oxen are taken to be the five planets. Similarly, ‘He (Indra ) filled heaven and earth and the mid-region; he superintends in various ways the five gods, the 49 gods ( Maruts) at the proper seasons together with the thirty-four lights similar to his own but each according to the different ordinances governing each’²⁴ ( R̥g. X. 55.3); ’these five oxen that stand in the midst of the great heaven’ (R̥g. I. 105. 10).

Planets in Ṛgveda

Vena²⁵ may be taken to be the brilliant Venus in R̥g. X.123. 1 and 5 the latter of which may be translated as follows: ‘The young lady (Uṣas or lightning ), approaching with a smile her lover, bears in the highest heaven Vena, the dear one, and she moves about, in the places of the dear (Vena) and sits down with him on a golden wing (a cloud)’. This would be a fine description of Venus rising in the east at dawn.

About months a good deal would have to be said later on. The word is either ‘mās’ or ‘māsa’. We have ‘mās’ in R̥g. I. 25.8, IV. 18. 4, X. 52. 3 ‘He (Agni) appears every day and every month’ and we have ‘māsa’ in R̥g. III. 31.9, V.78.9 (may the boy lying in the womb of his mother for ten months come out alive &c.), X. 184. 3. ‘Mās’ (the measurer) also means the Moon, as in Ṛg. VIII. 94.2, X. 12,7 ( ‘sūrye jyotir-adadhur-māsyaktūn,’ the gods placed light in the Sun and darkness in the Moon), X. 64.3, X. 68.10, X, 92. 12, X. 93.5. The words ‘mās’ (moon) and ‘māsa’(month ) are Indo-European, as variants of the same occur in many languages of the so-called Aryan family of languages.

Nakṣatras have been a matter of serious discussions in numerous works. The word ’nakṣatra’ has in all three senses (1) star in general; (2) 27 equal parts of the zodiac; (3) asterism in the zodiacal belt ( which may each consist of one or more stars ). In my opinion the first and the 3rd are the most frequent meanings of the word in the Vedic saṁhitās. It may be that the zodiacal belt was divided into 27 equal parts called nakṣatras, but the easier, more natural and probably the earlier way was to mark some conspicuous star groups like Kṛttikās, Mṛgaśiras and to refer to them as nakṣatras. The word ’nakṣatra’ occurs frequently in the Ṛgveda and the other saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas;

“the nakṣatras like thieves go away along with nights ( to make room ) for the Sun that sees the world’²⁶ (R̥g. 1. 50.2); ‘May the earth, the heaven, the waters, the Sun along with the nakṣatras and the wide sky listen to us’ (R̥g. III. 54. 19); ‘he (Varuṇa ) urges on in two ways the big and high heaven ( the Sun) and nakṣatras and also spreads the earth’ (R̥g. VII. 86.1); ‘when he ( the Sun) comes up, nakṣatras are not seen in the heavens, no one knows truly (how this happens )’ R̥g. X 111.7; ‘The Ādityas are strong through Soma, the earth is great through Soma and then Soma is placed in the lap of these nakṣatras’ ( Ṛg. X. 85.2). In some passages like R̥g. VII. 81.2 and X. 88. 13, it is difficult to say what ’nakṣatram ‘stands for. Nakṣatra in most of the above passages means a star in general. But in R̥g. X. 85.2 and in X 68.11 (the pitṛs adorned the heavens with nakṣatras ) ²⁷ nakṣatra appears to mean the 27 well-known asterisms. So also when the Śatapatha contrasts the Kṛttikās ( that do not swerve from the east) with other nakṣatras (that do swerve), nakṣatra should be taken to mean asterisms in the Zodiacal belt, the 27 (or 28 ) constellations in the Zodiacal belt in which the moon appears to move. Another word is ’ stṛ’ (that is an Indo-European word), which always occurs in the instrumental plural in the Ṛgveda (as in I. 68. 5, 1. 87. 1, I. 166. 11, II. 2. 5, II. 34. 2, IV. 7.3, VI. 49. 3 and 12 ) and is often connected with decking the sky. The word ‘ṛkṣa’ in the sense of ‘star’ occurs in R̥g. ²⁸ I. 24. 10 ’these ṛkṣas that are established high up (in the sky ) are seen at night, but where did they go by day’. This refers to the constellation of the seven sages (Ursa Major). In the Atharvaveda VI. 40. 1, the constellation of the seven sages is expressly mentioned: “May Heaven and Earth confer on us freedom from danger here; may the Sun and the Moon do the same for us; may the wide mid regions confer on us freedom from danger and may there be abhaya for us on account of the oblation offered to the Seven Sages”. The Śatapatha states that the seven sages were formerly called ‘ṛkṣāḥ’ ( note ²⁹ below). In R̥g. V. 56. 3, VIII, 24, 27, VIII, 68. 15 the word ṛkṣa means either ‘bear’ or something else.

Nakṣatras in Ṛgveda

It has been pointed out above p. 494 that in R̥g. X.55.3 there is a reference to twenty-seven nakṣatras.³⁰ Apart from that the Ṛgveda mentions the nakṣatras Tiṣya ( as above) and Aghā and Arjuni ³¹ ( in R̥g. X. 85. 13) which two latter correspond to Maghā and Phalgunis according to the Atharvaveda. It is possible to hold either that Aghā and Maghā were names for the same nakṣatra in Ṛgvedic times or that Aghā was changed to Maghā by the time of the Tai. S. and the Atharvaveda hymns. If the latter alternative be accepted the change in the names of the two nakṣatras ( Aghā and Arjunī) could not have taken place in a short time, but would require at least a hundred years between the time of R̥g. X.85 on the one hand and Tai. S. and Atharva 19.7 on the other. This would strongly militate against Max Mūller’s assignment of two hundred years to the saṁhitas which are purely hypothetical and the minimum dates ( vide Intro. p. XV to the 4th volume of his 4 volume ed. of the Ṛgveda ). Apart from Aghā and Arjuni which it is agreed are two of the 27 nakṣatras, it is probable that the Ṛgveda refers to Mṛgaśiras, Punarvasu, Śatabhiṣak and one or two more by name.

The Nakṣatras are 27 or 28 (adding Abhijit after Uttarāṣāḍhā and before Śravaṇa in ancient authorities ). In the Vedic literature, Vedāṅgajyotiṣa and even in Yājñavalkya-smṛti they are enumerated from Kṛttikā to Apabharaṇi ( or bharaṇi ) while in works from the 3rd or 4th century A. D. and in modern times they are enumerated from Aśvinī to Revati.

It is time now to set out in a list the names of nakṣatras, deities governing them, their gender and the number of stars in each. There is some divergence of views as regards the names and the deities, which will also be pointed out in the appended table: complete lists occur in Tai. S. IV. 4.10. 1-3, Tai. Br. I. 5 and III. 1, Atharvaveda XIX. 7. 2-5, Kāṭhaka saṁhita 39.13, Maitrāyaṇi saṁhitā II. 13,20 and Vedāṅga-jyotiṣa. For European equivalents of the Indian nakṣatras, vide Colebrooke in Asiatic Researches vol. IX chart opposite p. 322, Dikshit’s Marathi work (2nd ed. p. 459 ) and Burgess in J. R. A. S. for 1893 p. 756. It is not unlikely that there is a veiled reference to Revati, Punarvasū and Puṣya nakṣatras in Ṛg. X. 119. 1-3³², and R̥g. X. 86.22 appears to refer ³³, as Tilak says in ‘Orion’ p.166 ff., to the Mṛgaśiras nakṣatra; ‘Vṛṣākapi! O Indra! when you dashing upwards came to the house, where was that Mṛga guilty of a good deal of sin, to whom did that Mṛga, that confounds people, go? Indra is superior to all’. From R̥g. I. 161.11 and 13 and IV, 33.7, Atharvaveda IV. 11.11 it appears that the dog-star (Sirius ) is referred to, and that twelve days were added at the end of the year during which the Ṛbhus slept or took rest or enjoyed the hospitality of the Sun.³⁴

Nakṣatras in Ṛgveda

In R̥g. I. 124.9 ‘satam torājan bhiṣajaḥ sahasram’ it is possible to see a reference to the Śatabhiṣak nakṣatra of which Varuṇa is said be the devatā in the Tai. Br. III. 1, especially as in the following verse (ami ya ṛkṣā nihitāsa uccā ) there is a special reference to the Great Bear or to nakṣatras in general.

Some remarks on the nakṣatras in general and on individual nakṣatras would not be out of place. In the Ātharvaṇa nakṣatrakalpa (the first of the Atharvapariśiṣṭas edited by Bolling and Negelein ) in chapter 4 verses 1-8 the devatās (deities) of the nakṣatras are given and chap. 2 states the number of stars in each nakșatra. In some Purāṇas also such as the Viṣṇudharmottara (J. 83. 13-21) the presiding deities of nakṣatras are set out. In the Bṛhat-saṁhitā Varāhamihira (chap. 97. 4-5) specifies the deities of the nakṣatras from Aśvinī to Revati (including Abhijit ) as noted below. The Bṛhat-saṁhitā (96. 1-3), the Ātharvaṇa-nakṣatra-kalpa (1, 2) and the Viṣṇudharmottara (I. 88 4-7) specify the number of single stars in each nakṣatra (which are from one to six ), those having six stars being Kṛttikā, Āśleṣā and Maghā. Vide JASB, vol. 62 part 1 p. 14 where Hoernle gives a table, from a ms, of Puṣkarasāri’s work, of nakṣatras, the stars in each, the muhūrtas, the gotra, devata of each. According to Hoernle the work is very old. Some notes are added on individual nakṣatras ( mentioned in the Vedic works ). Kṛttika-The Tai, Br, III. 1.4. 1 specifies the names of seven Kr̥ttikās as Ambā, Dulā &c. Pāṇini refers to Kr̥ittikā as Bahulā (in IV. 3. 34). J. C. Hickey in ‘Introducing the universe’ (pp. 119 120) says that persons of unusually keen ³⁵ vision under favourable atmospheric conditions can see even eleven. Mṛgaśirṣa-Tai. Br. III. 1. 4. 3 mentions both names viz, Mṛgaśirṣa and Invakā. Punarvasū—In the Kāṭhaka and Mai. S. this is masculine singular ; Pāṇini states (1. 2. 61 ) that in the Veda the word ‘Punarvasu’ is employed optionally in the singular (i.e. sometimes in the dual, sometimes in the singular).

Kālidāsa employs the dual Punarvasū ja Raghuvaṁśa XI. 36 ‘gām gatāviva divaḥ Punarvasū.’

Tiṣya-Pāniṇi uses the word Tiṣya in I. 2. 63 and 3. 34 and the words Puṣya and Sidhya in the sense of ‘on which undertakings prosper or succeed.’

Phalguni-Pāṇini provides that the words Phalguni and Proṣthapadā as nakṣatras are optionally used in the dual or plural.

Niṣṭyā—Mai. S. shows that this is neuter singular. Niṣṭyā in R̥g. VI, 75. 19, VIII, 1, 13, X 133.5 appears to mean ‘outsider or outcaste’.

Viśākhā-Pāniṇi (I. 2. 62) provides that in the Veda ‘Viśakhā’ is sometimes used in the singular, sometimes in the dual, while in his day it was used in the dual.

Anurādhā-The mantra in Tai. Br. III. 1,2, 1 appears to use it as masculine plural.

Rohiṇī-Jyeṣṭhā is called Rohiṇī in Tai. S. and Tai, Br, (1,5). Jyeṣṭhā is styled Jyeṣṭhāghni in Atharva VI. 110. 2. Vide note ³⁶ below.

Mūla-In Tai, S, Vicr̥tau is used for Mūla, The Atharvaveda brings together Vicr̥tau and Jyeṣṭhāghni in VI. 110. 2-3 and has “Vicr̥tau nāma tārake’ in II. 8, 1 and VI. 121. 3. In R̥g. X, 87, 10 (tridhā mūlam yātudhānasya vr̥śca ) Mūla means ‘root, foot’. The word ‘Mūlabarhaṇa’ occurs in Atharva VI, 110.2 and Mūlabarhaṇi in Tai. Br. I. 5. 1. 4.

Abhijit–not mentioned in Tai, S. and Kāṭhaka, though mentioned in Tai, Br., Atharva and Mai. S. It is sometimes mentioned in later works e. g, the Anuśāsanaparva ( 64. 5–35 ) mentions the consequences of gifts to brāhmaṇas on 28 nakṣatras from Kr̥ttikā to bharaṇi.

Śronā-Atharva calls it Śravaṇa and Kāṭhaka speaks of it as Aśvattha. In Pāṇini IV. 2. 22 Aśvattha is mentioned as a nakṣatra, The word Śroṇa in R̥g. I, 112. 8 means ’lame or cripple’.

Proṣṭhapadā –Atharvaveda speaks of ‘dvayā Proṣṭhapadā’.

It would be noticed that some of the names of nakṣatras differ such as Invakā (in Tai. Br. 1.5.1 and Kāṭhaka ) for Mṛga śīrṣa, Bāhū for Ārdrā ( in Tai. Br. I. 5.1, Kāṭhaka S. and Maitrā. yani S.), Tiṣya for Puṣya, Niṣṭyā for Svāti (in Tai. Br.), Rohiṇī ( in Tai. Br. I. 5.4 and Tai. S.) for Jyeṣṭhā, Vicr̥tau in Tai. S. for Mūla ( in other Vedic texts ), Śroṇā (in Tai. S., Tai. Br. and Mai. S.) and Aśvattha in Kāṭhaka S. for Śravaṇa (in Atharva. ), Śraviṣṭhā for (medieval and modern ) Dhaniṣṭhā, Apabharaṇi for bharaṇi (in Atharva., Mai. S. and modern times). The deities also differ, the most striking being the change of place between Bhaga and Aryaman as presiding deities of Āṣāḍhās in the Kāṭhaka, Vedāṅgajyotiṣa, Śan gr̥. and Indra as deity of Citrā in Tai. S. and Tyaṣṭr̥ in Tai. Br.

List of nakṣatras in the Vedic saṁhitās, names, deities, &c. with remarks where necessary. Comparative table of Nakṣatras

No.	Vedic Name	Modern Name	Vedic deity generally	Tai. Sam. IV.4.10.1-3	Tai.Br. I.5	Tai.Br.III.I.4.5	Atharvaveda XIX.7.2-5	Kathaka Sam.39.13	Maitrayani S.II.13.20	Vedanga Jyotisa verses 25-26. (Rg), 36-40 (Yajurveda) sets out only deities	Gender	Number of Stars
1	Kr̥ttikā	Kr̥ttikā	Agni	Kr̥ttikā	Kr̥ttikā	Kr̥ttikā	mentions no deity for any nakṣatra	Kr̥ttikā	Kr̥ttikā	Agni	F.	Tai.Br.III.1.4.1 specifies the seven names as Ambādulā &c.
2	Rohiṇī	Rohiṇī	Prajāpati	Rohiṇī	Rohiṇī	Rohiṇī	Rohiṇī	Rohiṇī	Rohiṇī	Prajāpati	F.	one
3	Mr̥gaśirṣa	Mr̥gaśirṣa	Soma	Mr̥gaśirṣa	Invakā	Mr̥gaśiras or Invakā	Mr̥gaśiras	Invakā (deity Maruts)	Invakā (deity Maruts)	Soma	N. F.	one Plural in Tai.Br.1.5, Kāṭhaka, Mai.
4	Ārdrā	Ārdrā	Rudra	Ārdrā	Bāhū	Ārdrā	Ārdrā	Bāhū	Bāhū	Rudra	F.	Two in Tai.Br.I.5 and one in Tai.S.,Kāṭhaka and Mai (and M.)
5	Punarvasu	Punarvasu	Aditi	Punarvasu	Punarvasu	Punarvasu	Punarvasu	Punarvasu	Punarvasu	Aditi	M. M.	Two One in Kāṭhaka and Mai.
6	Tiṣya	Puṣya	Br̥haspati	Tiṣya	Tiṣya	Tiṣya	Puṣya	Tiṣya	Tiṣya	Br̥haspati	M.	one
7	Āśreṣā	Āśleṣā	Sarpāḥ	Āśreṣā	Āśreṣā	Āśreṣā	Āśleṣā	Āśleṣā	Āśleṣā	Sarpāḥ	F.	Plural
8	Maghā	Maghā	Pitaraḥ	Maghā	Maghā	Maghā	Maghā	Maghā	Maghā	Pitaraḥ	F.	Plural
9	Phalgunī	Purvā(Phalgunī)	Aryaman	Phalgunī	Purvā(Phalgunī)	Phalgunī	Purvā(Phalgunī)	Phalgunīḥ(Bhaga deity)	Phalgunīḥ(Bhaga deity)	Bhaga	F.	Plural; dual in Atharva, Tai.Br.I.5 and III.1 and singular in Tai.S.
10	Phalgunī	Uttara Phalgunī	Bhaga	Phalgunī	Uttara Phalgunī	Phalgunī	not mentioned	Uttara Phalgunīḥ (Aryaman)	Uttara Phalgunī(deity Aryaman)	Aryaman	F.	one; dual in Tai.Br.I.5 and III.1.4.10
11	Hasta	Hasta	Savitr̥	Hasta	Hasta	Hasta	Hasta	Hasta	Hasta	Savitr̥	M.	singular; dual in Kāṭhaka.
12	Citrā	Citrā	Indra	Citrā	Citrā	Citrā deity Tvaṣṭr̥	Citrā	Citrā (Tvaṣṭr̥)	Citrā (Tvaṣṭr̥)	Tvaṣṭr̥	F.	one
13	Svāti	Svāti	Vāyu	Svāti	Niṣtyā (Vāyu)	Niṣtyā (Vāyu)	Svāti	Niṣtyā (Vāyu)	Niṣtyam (Vāyu)	Vāyu	F. N.	one. In Mai.
14	Viśākhā	Viśākhā	Indrāgni	Viśākhe	Viśākhe	Viśākhe	Viśākhe	Viśākham	Viśākham	Indrāgni	F. N.	Two; Singular in Kāṭ, Mai.
15	Anurādhā	Anurādhā	Mitra	Anūrādhā	Anūrādhā	Anūrādhā	Anurādhā	Anurādhā	Anūrādhā	Mitra	F. M.	Plural; Plural in Tai.Br.III.1.5.1.
16	Rohiṇī	Jyeṣṭhā	Indra	Rohiṇī	Rohiṇī	Jyeṣṭhā	Jyeṣṭhā	Jyeṣṭhā (Indra)	Jyeṣṭhā (Varuṇa)	Indra	F.	one
17	Vicr̥tau	Mūla	Pitaraḥ	Vicr̥tau (Pitaraḥ	Mūlabarhaṇi (Nirr̥ti)	Mūla (Nirr̥ti)	Mūlam	Mūlam (Nirr̥ti)	Mūlam (Nirr̥ti)		M or F N. F.	Two (when Vicr̥tau) One (Mūla) in Kāṭ, Tai.Br.III.1.5.3. One (Mūlabarhaṇi)
18	Aṣāḍhā	Pūrvāṣāḍhā	Āpaḥ	Aṣāḍhā	Pūrvāṣāḍhā	Aṣāḍhāḥ	Aṣāḍhā	Aṣāḍhā	Āṣāḍhā	Āpaḥ	F.	Plural
19	Aṣāḍhā	Uttarāṣāḍhā	Viśvedevāḥ	Aṣāḍhā	Uttarāṣāḍhā	Aṣāḍhāḥ	Uttarā	Uttarāṣāḍhā	Āṣāḍhā	Viśvedevāḥ	F.	Plural
20	Abhijit	Abhijit (not counted)	Brahmā	not mentioned	Abhijit (deity not m.)	Abhijit (Brahmā)	Abhijit	not mentioned	Abhijit	not mentioned	N.	one
21	Śroṇā	Śravaṇa	Viṣṇu	Śroṇā	Śroṇā	Śroṇā	Śravaṇa	Aśvattha	Śroṇā (Viṣṇu)	Viṣṇu	F.	one
22	Śraviṣṭha	Dhaniṣṭha	Vasavaḥ	Śraviṣṭha	Śraviṣṭha	Śraviṣṭha	Śraviṣṭha	Śraviṣṭha	Śraviṣṭha	Vasavaḥ	F.	Plural
23	Śatabhiṣak	Śatabhiṣak	Indra	Śatabhiṣak	Śatabhiṣak (Indra)	Śatabhiṣak (Varuṇa)	Śatabhiṣak	Śatabhiṣak (Varuṇa)	Śatabhiṣak (Indra)		M. N.	one. In Atharva, Mai.
24	Proṣṭhapadā	PūrvāBhādrapadā	Aja Ekapād	Proṣṭhapadā	Proṣṭhapadā	Proṣṭhapadā		Proṣṭhapadā	Proṣṭhapade (Ahirbudhnya)	Aja Ekapād	M. F.	Plural in Tai.Bṛ I.5. In others.
25	Proṣṭhapadā	UttarāBhādrapadā	Ahirbudhniya	Proṣṭhapadā (Ahirbudhniya)	Proṣṭhapadā (Ahirbudhniya)	Proṣṭhapadā (Ahirbudhniya)	Proṣṭhapadā	UttareProṣṭhapadā (Ahirbudhniya)	Proṣṭhapadā (Aja Ekapād)	Ahirbudhniya	M. (or F.?)	Plural
26	Revati	Revati	Pūsan	Revati	Revati	Revati	Revati	Revati	Revati	Pūsan	F.	one
27	Aśvayujau	Aśvinī	Aśvinau	Aśvayujau	Aśvayujau	Aśvayujau	Aśvayujau	Aśvayujau	Aśvayujau	Aśvinau	M.	Dual
28	Apabharaṇi	Bharaṇi	Yama	Apabharaṇi	Apabharaṇi	Bharaṇi	Bharaṇyaḥ	Apabharaṇiḥ	Bharaṇiḥ	Yama	F.	Plural

Nakṣatras in saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas

and Kāṭhaka S., Pitaraḥ as deity for Mūla in Tai. S. but Nirr̥ti in almost all other texts; Indra as deity of Śatabhisak in Tai. S. and Maj. S. but Varuṇa in Tai. Br. (III. 1.) and Kāṭhaka. Further, it was also specified whether a nakṣatra had only one star or had a cluster of two or three or more. Besides, the important point for consideration is; why does the Tai. S. differ from the Tai. Br. and Tai. Br. I. 5 from Tai. Br. III, 1 in the number of nakṣatras, in the names and the deities also of some of them. No satisfactory explanation can be given except this that the Tai. S. passage is earlier by some centuries than the Tai. Br. section (III. 1) or the Tai. S was composed in a country far away from the place where the Tai. Br. was composed. This latter does not appear to be probable since one part of Tai. Br. (1. 5) differs from another part (III. 1). The latter section speaks of a nakṣatra-iṣṭi in which oblations are offered to 28 nakṣatras ( including Abhijit ) and their deities (one nakṣatra being dealt with on each day from Kṛttikās) together with puronuvākyās ( invitatory verses ) and yājyās (oblation verses ) which are different for each nakṣatra. The first fourteen nakṣatras from Kṛttikā (up to and including Viśākhā) are called Devanakṣatras and the fourteen nakṣatras from Anūrādhā to Apabharaṇi or bharaṇi are cālled Yamanakṣatras. After Viśākhā, the Tai. Br. (Nakṣatreṣṭi) inserts Paurṇamāsi with appropriate puronuvākyā and yājyā verses and after apabharaṇi an offering to Amāvāsyā with a puronuvākyā (which is the verse ‘Nivesani saṅgamani vasūnām’ Tai. S. III. 5.1.1) and a yājyā ( which is the verse “yat te devā adadhur’, Tai. S. III. 4. 1. 1). Besides, it was laid down that the sacrificer had to invoke gods in the sacrifice by a name ( to be kept secret) derived from the presiding deity of the nakṣatra on which he was ³⁷ born ( i.e. if born on Kṛttikā, then some name like Agnimitra &c., if on Puṣya, Bṛhaspatimitra &c.).

Nakṣatras and Agnyādheya

If the nakṣatras ( 27 or 28 ) had been borrowed at one time en bloc from a foreign source the divergences in the names of the nakṣatras, in the presiding deities, and in the gender and number should ordinarily not have arisen to the extent they do. But, if they were an indigenous growth then differences of opinion would naturally have been evolved in the passage of centuries. The only asterisms first specialised and named in Greece and Syria were the Pleiades in Job. 38. 31, Homer and Hesiod; Orion in Job. 39.31, Homer and Hesiod; Arcturus in Job. 9.9 and in 39.32, Homer and Hesiod; the great Bear in Homer and Hesiod, Aldebaran in Homer and Hesiod and three more including Sirius (vide ‘Dawn of Astronomy’ by Norman Lockyer, 1884 p. 33). This is several centuries later (if not thousands) than the early Vedic texts wherein the whole scheme of nakṣatras appears.

Further details contained in the Tai. Br. and Baudhāyana śrauta-sūtra ( 28, 3–4 ) are not set out here. The Nakṣatreṣṭi in the Tai. Br. (III. 1 ) has been competently dealt with by Prof. Paul Emile Dumont in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 98, No. 3 ( 1954 ) with text, English translation and notes. The nakṣatras had been closely observed and many legends arose from imaginary resemblances of star groups to certain familiar animals and also fanciful interpretations of the constellations observed in the sky. The nakṣatras were closely concerned not merely in a religious rite called Nakṣatreṣṭi, but they were of prime importance in the basic śrauta rite, viz. consecration of the sacred fires (Agnyādhāna). In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (II. 1. 2 ) reference is made to several nakṣatras from Kṛttikā onwards together with their presiding deities as being fit for Agnyadhāna (viz. Kṛttikā, Rohiṇī, Mṛgaśīrsa, Pūrvā Phalguni, Uttarā Phalguni, Hasta, Citrā). The Tai. Br. recommends spring, summer and Śarad for Agnyādheya in the case of Brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya sacrificer respectively. The Śatapatha appears to condemn setting up of sacred fires in relation to nakṣatra alone and recommends that Agnyādheya should be performed on the New Moon of Vaiśākha on which there is Rohiṇī nakṣatra ;³⁸ but these rules did not apply when a person had resolved upon performing Soma sacrifice and he should not in that case stop to consider the season or nakṣatra.

Very interesting information and legends are given in the Vedic texts about some of the nakṣatras. About the Kṛttikās the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa³⁹ states ‘other nakṣatras contain one star, or two or three or four stars, but these Kṛttikās are many; the sacrificer reaches plenty; therefore one should set up sacred fires on the Kṛttikās. These ( Kṛttikās) indeed do not swerve from the east, while all other nakṣatras do swerve from the eastern direction.’ The recondite allusion in R̥g. I. 164, 33 (atra pitā duhitur-garbham-ādhāt) and X. 61.7 (pitā yat svām duhitaramadhiṣkan) are developed into a myth, a lengthy account of which is given in the Ait. Br. XIII. 10 and Śatapatha I. 6. 2. 1-4 (Prajāpati approached his daughter, some say the heaven and others say it was Uṣas &c.) and about Rohiṇī, Mṛga, the Mṛgavyādha (Sirius) and the three stars in the belt of Orion. Prajāpati ⁴⁰ is said to have had 33 daughters which he gave in marriage to king Soma, who was fond of Rohiṇī and on account of that suffered from Rājayakṣman (Tai. S. II. 3. 5. 1).

Why the nakṣatra lists begin with the Kṛttikās in the Vedic Literature and why with Aśvinī in classical Sanskrit literature can be explained only on astronomical considerations. The vernal equinox was in Kṛttikā about 2300 B. C. Instead of admitting this as a probable date for the Vedic works, Fleet boldly asserts that the list of nakṣatras beginning with Kṛttikās has no basis in fact, but belongs entirely to ritual and astrology (JRAS for 1916 p. 570 ). No detailed arguments are deemed necessary. Fleet does not specify cogent evidence, nor does he assign reasons why priests later on changed the beginning of the list from Kṛttikā to Aśvinī, nor does he vouchsafe how the list of nakṣatras in the Vedic age began in fact for ordinary folk if the Kṛttikā list was a pure priestly invention. Even Thibaut (in I. A. vol. 24 at p. 100 ) had to admit that the beginning of the nakṣatra series with Kṛttikā instead of with Aśvinī seriously affects Max Muller’s assignment of 1500 B. C. to 800 B. C. to the Vedic period. In the Tai. S. VII. 4. 8 there is a discussion about the time for undergoing the dīkṣā in a Sāṁvatsara-satra’. ⁴¹ It is proposed there that the dikṣā may be performed on the Full Moon in Phalgunī because that is the beginning of the year; then an objection is raised against this and it is proposed that the dikṣā may be taken on Full Moon in Citrā, because that was the beginning of the year. If the year began with the winter solstice in those days this reference would have to be placed at 4000 or 6000 B. C. This passage probably embodies traditions that the year began in different months in different periods of antiquity.

Great controversies have raged over the question whether the Indian nakṣatras are indigenous or were borrowed from some other people. The great French astronomer Biot held that Indians borrowed the nakṣatra system from the Chinese and Whitney followed Biot. There were others who held that Indians borrowed them either from the Babylonians or the Arabs. I cannot enter here into the merits of these discussions. The Arabs themselves admit that they borrowed their astronomy from Indian Siddhāntas and there is hardly anything to show that they know the complete nakṣatra system as early as at least 1500 B. C. Therefore, we may leave the Arabs out of account altogether ( vide Thibaut in Grundriss p. 14). Great scholars are often blinded by prejudices and shut their eyes to basic facts. The Chinese system of Sieu had at first only 24 and then it became one of ( it is said ) 28 at about 1100 B. C. ( as said by Thibaut in Grundriss p. 13.) There are no clear traces in the Vedic texts that nakṣatras were held to be 24 during the times of those texts.

Nakṣatras indigenous or borrowed

We should not accept at their face value the assumptions of the antiquity of astronomy in China that are sometimes advanced (vide’ East and West’, Rome, vol. VI. p. 288.) Besides, neither in Babylonia nor in China were the asterisms thoroughly integrated with the religious system. In Vedic times one was not entitled to perform solemn sacrifices unless he had already set up sacred fires on certain nakṣatras. Further, the months (Māgha, Phālguna, Caitra &c.) were named after certain nakṣatras and exist only in Sanskrit, not in Greek, Latin or Chinese. The deities that were deemed to preside over the nakṣatras from such ancient days as those of the Tai. S. and Tai. Br. are almost all of them exclusively Vedic and have no counterparts in Babylonia or China. Besides, though thousands of cuneiform tablets have been found in Babylonia no one has, so far as I know, pointed to a single tablet where all the nakṣatras appear in an orderly series of 27 or 23, as we find in Vedic saṁhitās. It is at least clear that long before the Taittiriya saṁhitā the Vedic people had fixed the number of the nakṣatras (at 27 or 28 ), their names and order and their presiding deities and had made the nakṣatras a most integral part of their sacrificial system. Furthermore, almost all of the Indian names of nakṣatras are significant or have ancient legends connected with them. For example, Ārdrā means ‘wet’ and the nakṣatra was called Ārdrā because when the sun was in it rains set in. Punarvasu was probably so called because the grains of paddy or barley sown in the ground sprout up as new wealth after being buried; Puṣya, was so called because the young sprouts grow and become nourished; Āśreṣā or Āśleśā, because the grown-up plants of paddy or barley grow high enough to embrace each other; Maghā, because the paddy or other plants are putting forth the standing crop which is wealth in itself; Kṛttiki, because they (being six or seven ), look like the skin of the spotted deer on which a religious student was to sit for Vedic study. In these circumstances the burden to prove borrowing of the nakṣatra system by Indians was very heavy on those who affirmed it. What is the evidence? There is very little evidence except prejudice and speculation. The main tangible evidence they can and do rely on is that the Chinese or Babylonians had also 28 nakṣatras as the Indians had. But these scholars, though very learned and far seeing in their own way, never stopped to consider how from China and Babylon the nakṣatras could reasonably be supposed to have been derived by Indians more than 3500 years ago (on a most modest estimate) and allowed to be the very centre and basis of their religion of sacrifices, what were the means for the communication of the thoughts and ideas underlying the nakṣatra system and why one may not surmise that the real state of things was the other way about (viz. the Babylonians and Chinese derived the system from the ancestors of Indians ) or that all systems were derived from a common prehistoric source. Another reason for discounting the theories of Biot, Weber and Whitney may also be advanced viz. the researches of Tilak in his ‘Orion’ (particularly pp. 61-95) and of Prof. Jacobi have at least made this clear that the Kṛttikā series is not the oldest arrangement of the nakṣatras known to Indians, but that the Indians had once an older arrangement, which placed Mṛgaśirṣa at the vernal equinox. Those who are interested in these somewhat novel and rather barren controversies raised by Biot, Weber and others may read Weber’s ‘der vedischen Nachrichten von den Nakṣatras’, two volumes, I. A. vol. 23 pp. 154-159 (Jacobi on the date of the Ṛgveda’), pp. 238–249 (Būhler’s note on Jacobi’s theory and Tilak’s Orion, 1. A. pp. 85-100 (Thibaut on ‘antiquity of Vedic civilization’) and pp. 361-369 (Whitney), I. A. 48 pp. 95–97. The word ’nakṣatra’ is derived by Yāska ⁴² from the root ’nakṣ’ meaning ’to go’, while the Śatapatha Br. (II. 1. 2. 17-18) and Tai. Br. II. 7. 18 derive it as from na plus kṣatra and Pāniṇi (VI. 3.75) accepts this derivation. The word ’nakṣatra’(m) is applied even to the Sun in R̥g. VI. 67. 6. Tai. Br. teaches how one is to mark the nakṣatra on which one has to perform a religious act, viz. he should mark about dawn and before the first rays light the sky the part of the sky where the nakṣatra appears and when the sun appears the nakṣatra would be to the west of the sun, at which time he should perform what he has to do. It is stated that sage Matsya established into eminence Yajñeṣu and Śatadyumna by this method (Tai, Br. I. 5. 2.1.).

Even so early as the Ait. Br. ⁴³ Vedic Indians had arrived at the conclusion that the Sun was one and never sets. “This Sun indeed never sets nor rises. When people think that he (the Sun) sets what happens is he reaches the end of the day, reverses himself, creates night below and day above. When people think that he rises in the morning, that means that having reached the end of the night he reverses himself, makes day below and night above. He indeed never sets’. This is in very interesting contrast to the Jaina view in Sūryaprajñapti of two suns and two moons or the view of Heraclitus in Greece ( 6th century B. C.) that a new sun was born and died every day ( Eisler p. 42.)

The Sun and Ait. Br.

In the Brāhmaṇa period Indians had ⁴⁴ found out the day called Viṣuvat or Viṣuva (which is said to be in the middle of the sacrificial year) when the day and night were of equal length: ‘As a person fastens the two wings or sloping sides of a hall (or shed) to the bamboo ridge or beam that is in the middle of the shed ), so people use the Divākīrtya day for stretching across the two sides ( half years)’.

I have purposely devoted some space to the subject of the astronomical knowledge of people in the Vedic age. Several European scholars that have written on the astronomical achievements of ancient and medieval India, have indulged in very disparaging and contemptuous statements about Indians not only in astronomy, but generally.

To take only one or two instances. Thibaut (Grundriss p. 3 ) is pleased to observe that what Indians knew before Greek influence is not much and is of a primitive character. This is how Whitney, a learned American scholar of Sanskrit, unburdens himself; ’there can be no question that, from what we know in other respects of the character and tendencies of the Hindu mind, we should not at all look to find the Hindus in possession of an astronomical science possessing so much of truth. They have been from the beginning distinguished by a remarkable inaptitude and disinclination to observe, to collect facts, to record, to make inductive investigations’ (J. A. O. S. vol. VI p 471). His coadjutor, Mr. Burgess, differed from him even in regard to astronomy (ibid. pp. 477–480 ).

One is tempted to return Whitney’s compliments to Indians in the same coin by saying that for 1400 years from Ptolemy, the ancestors of Whitney and other highbrows hardly ever made any discovery of astronomical importance, stuck unthinkingly and slavishly to the Almagest and were literally in the dark about the true astronomical position during what are often called the Dark Ages of Europe. Even Luther who rebelled against the authority of the Pope denounced Copernicus as a fool, charged the latter with turning upside down the science of astronomy and relied upon the Bible, which, he said, declared that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still and not the Earth (Joshua 10. 12). This betrays the old mentality that if there is a contradiction between the words of the Bible and Nature, the believers in Scripture must correct their ideas of Nature in accordance with the Bible and not the Bible in accordance with what is found to be Nature. This also reminds one of the maxim of the Pūrvamimāṁsā that there is nothing too heavy for a sacred text.

I should request all Western authors interested in Indology and dazzled by some writings of a few Greeks to ponder deeply over the following words of Sir Norman Lockyer in his ‘Dawn of Astronomy’ (1894) ‘Anaximander told us that the earth was cylindrical in shape and every place that was then known was situated on the flat end of the cylinder; and Plato, on the ground that the cube was the most perfect geometrical figure, imagined the earth to be a cube, the part of the earth known to the Greeks being on the upper surface. In these matters the vaunted Greek mind was little in advance of the predecessors of the Vedic priests’ (p. 8).

Unpardonable omissions by Western writers

If the Greeks forged ahead in one or two branches, there were several other peoples in the world that far surpassed them in other equally important matters. I would also recommend to them to read carefully what Sarton says in his Preface (p. IX) to ‘A history of Science’ where he charges Western writers with unpardonable omissions viz. ignoring the scientific efforts of Egypt, Mesopotamia and other countries and assuming childishly that science began in Greece and secondly hiding the superstitions which surrounded eminent Greeks. Writers at least in the 19th and 20th centuries should have no reason to run down one people and praise to the skies another people, but their endeavour should be to arrive at well documented, well-balanced, impartial and cautious judgments upon the achievements of ancient peoples of the world.

The chronology of the Vedic age is far from certain. Jacobi, Dikshit, Tilak and some others would put the Vedic age back to 4000 B. C. or even earlier. Winternitz puts it as far back as 2500 B. C.; while Max Mūller and following him many Western scholars would thrust all Vedic Literature between 1500 to 800 B.C. Even taking these latter timings the Vedic Literature shows a good deal of progress in astronomical matters which Indians could not have owed to Greece. There is no extant literature in Greece that can be placed earlier than about 900 or 800 B. C. with certainty. The Homeric poems and the works of Hesiod are the oldest surviving literary writings in Greek. Homer mentions the Sun, the Moon, the morning and evening star, the Pleiades, Hyades, Orion, Great Bear, Sirius (Orion’s Dog), Bootes (Arcturus) and Hesiod mentions practically the same stars as Homer; Hesiod says that spring began sixty days after winter solstice, puts down moon’s period at thirty days, but does not mention equinoxes.⁴⁵ It should be noted that Vedic astronomy several centuries (if not thousands of years) earlier than Homer and Hesiod was at least as advanced as that in the two Greek authors. The very ancient peoples (besides Indians and Chinese ) are the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hittites and Chaldeans. About the Egyptians, the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. II p. 218) states that there is very little trace of the application of Mathematics to Astronomy in Egypt and that, though the length of the solar year had been fairly accurately determined, this was done by observation of the heliacal rising of Sirius or Sothis which happened to correspond rather closely with the first rise of the Nile and involved no calculation whatsoever.

About Hittites and Chaldeans there is not much to be said as no one asserts that nakṣatras were borrowed from them. Even about 800 B.C. Homer’s and Hesiod’s knowledge of astronomy was meagre. Even Hipparchus, regarded as the greatest astronomer of antiquity who completed his catalogue about 130 B. C., had access to a continuous series of observations made in Mesopotamia reaching back to 747 B. C.⁴⁶ Ptolemy wrote about 150 A. D.; his Almagest is based on the observations of Hipparchus, and almost all that is known about the predecessors of Ptolemy is derived from the latter’s work, as, owing to the very excellence of Ptolemy’s work, all writings of his predecessors ceased to be studied and have not been recovered. The theory of Greek influence in astrology will be dealt with a little later on, but a few words may be said here about the supposed influence of Greek astronomy on the Indian Siddhāntas[^⁴⁷] and later works.

Greek influence and Siddhāntas

In the first place no Indian work of the Siddhānta class admits that any Yavana knowledge was at the basis of the Indian astronomy nor do these ancient Sanskrit works on astronomy set out any large number of purely astronomical terms of Greek origin as Varāha does in astrology. The subjects to be dealt with in the Pañcasiddhāntikā are set out in chap. I. verses 5-7 and there is hardly any word therein that can be said to be originally Greek. Reliance is placed by Weber and others on the fact that two of the five Siddhāntas the characteristics of which are summarised by Varāhamihira in his Karaṇa⁴⁸ called Pañcasiddhāntikā are designated Romaka and Pauliśa and it is argued that this clearly suggests Greek influence. One should like to know the number of purely Greek astronomical words employed in the Siddhāntas (older than Varāha) and different from the 36 or 37 Greek words said to have been employed in Sanskrit astrology by Varāha and others. Conceding for argument that Romaka stands for the Alexandrian school that does not prove Greek influence on the Siddhāntas. There is hardly any evidence to show that any medieval work or calendar in India followed or was based mainly upon the data of the Romaka.⁴⁹ The length of its year is 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds which exactly agrees with the determination of the extent of the year given by Hipparchus and accepted by Ptolemy (Thibaut in Grundriss p. 42). The rules set up by Varāha for ahargaṇa according to Romaka give results for the meridian of Yavanapura (and not for that of Ujjayini). It did not occur to any Western scholar so far that the Romaka-siddhānta being in Sanskrit was most probably Composed by some Greek ⁵⁰ settled in India familiar with Sanskrit as well as with the Greek or Alexandrian astronomy that preceded Ptolemy and probably even Hipparchus and that therefore Varāha gave a summary of it in his karaṇa, just as in his famous work on Astrology, the Bṛhajjātaka, he mentions the views of the Yavanas and frequently differs from them. Further Varāha is generous in his appreciation of Greek astrology ⁵¹ ‘Yavanas are indeed Mlecchas and this śāstra is well cultivated (or established) among them; even they (the Yavanas) are honoured as if they were sages. What need it be said about a Brāhmaṇa well-versed in Astrology (he will be honoured much more)’.

Varāha and Yavana Astronomy

The word ‘śāstra’ in this verse when read along with ‘daivavid’ in the 2nd half must be taken in the sense of ‘horā-śāstra’. But Varāha nowhere pays a similar compliment to Yavanas about their proficiency in Astronomy and Mathematics. This would suggest that in astronomy he did not rate them high or did not think they had anything special to impart to Indians or at least he did not base his astronomical theories on the works of Greek astronomers. He hardly ever employs any Greek words that are not already employed in his work on astrology.

Thibaut (Grundriss, p. 42 ) holds that the name Puliśa has decidedly a non-Indian appearance. One fails to understand why these learned writers are so positive about a certain name being non-Indian. We have in Sanskrit such ancient names as Pulastya, ⁵² Pulaha, Paulastya (for Kubera ) which contain most of the elements of the word Puliśa and are very similar to it. ‘Even in these days Hindus bear such names as Nabobsingh. The siddhāntas are called Paitāmaha and Pauliśa because they were deemed to have been composed by Pitāmaha and Puliśa. Alberuni, Thibaut says, traces the name Puliśa to a Greek author Paulus; but Alberuni who was familiar with both Indian and Greek authors might have committed a mistake, as even such a scholar as Weber, whose vast reading and phenomenal industry are a marvel, was misled by mere similarity in name and one recalls what was said in the drama Śakuntala by the attendant of Śakuntalā’s little son that the child was misled by the similarity of names. Thibaut himself admits that it cannot be proved that the Pauliśa siddhānta is related to the work of the Greek astrologer Paulus. Pauliśa-siddhānta appears to have restricted itself mostly to astronomical matters. We have seen (p. 488) that the Paitāmaha-siddhānta was composed about 80 A. D. Therefore, that Siddhānta could not have borrowed anything from Ptolemy ( 150 A. D.). Prof. Neugebauer again has ⁵³ no doubt that the original impetus to scientific Hindu astronomy came from Hellenistic astronomy, since he thinks that the use of the eccentric-epicyclic model alone is sufficient proof.

But he is inclined to hold that the period of reception lies between Hipparchus and Ptolemy and hopes that a systematic study of Hindu astronomical works might reveal information about pre-Ptolemaic Greek astronomy no longer preserved in available Greek sources. It is doubtful whether that hope will ever be fulfilled. If ancient Indians were capable of analysing the elements of the Sanskrit language and raising such a system as Pāṇini’s, if they could plumb the depths of the human mind and create a mental discipline like the Yoga, if they carefully noted centuries before Christ the parts of the glottis and other organs in the mouth in the production of the letters of their language and produced the Prātiśākhyas and Śikṣā works, if they could create a fable literature and invent the game of chess and make a gift of these two to the whole of mankind, if their knowledge of Algebra was of a superior order (vide Colebrooke’s Essays, vol. II, at p. 446 and Cajori’s ‘a History of Elementary Mathematics’ pp. 93-101), if they invented the decimal place value⁵⁴ system for numbers and propagated it and the sign for a zero to Europe through the Arabs in the 12th century A. D., there is hardly any compelling reason for saying that it would not have been possible for them to arrive at their own eccentric and epicycle system (of which Prof. Neugebauer makes so much) independently of any other people to explain the supposed motions of the Sun, the Moon and the planets round the earth.

Indian Astronomy and Greek influence

One more observation must be made here. The VedāṅgaJyotiṣa ⁵⁵ says ‘The sun and the moon start towards the north in the month of Māgha at the beginning of Śraviṣṭhā (i.e. Dhaniṣṭhā) and the Sun starts towards the south in the middle of Āśleṣā in the month of Srāvaṇa’ i.e. winter solstice was in the beginning of Dhaniṣṭhā. In the Bṛhatsaṁhitā Varāhamihira tells us that in his day the two ayanas of the Sun took place at the beginning of Karkaṭaka and of Makara respectively, that indeed at some time in the past Uttarāyaṇa began at the beginning of Dhaniṣṭhā and dakṣiṇāyana commenced in the middle of Āśleṣā and that therefore it was so declared in former śāstras. This shows that, between about 505 A. D. when Varāha planned and probably wrote his Pañca-siddhāntikā and the observation contained in the Vedāṅga-jyotiṣa, the commencement of Dakṣināyana had shifted from the middle of Āśleṣā to the last quarter of Punarvasu i.e. in all about 23 degrees and 20 minutes. Varāhamihira makes no effort to explain this. It is therefore quite reasonable to argue that he was probably not aware of the theory of the precession of the equinoxes. Authorities are not in complete agreement as to the yearly extent of precession. Taking it at 50.2 seconds per year, the total number of years between Varāha and the date of the observation in Vedāṅgajyotiṣa would be about 1673 and deducting 505 years (the time of Varāha’s epoch for a siddhānta calculation) the observation would refer itself to about 1168 B. C. If Varāha and his predecessors had borrowed scientific astronomy directly from the Greeks, they should have been quite aware of the precession of equinoxes, since precession is said to have been discovered by Hipparchus, and was adopted by Ptolemy.⁵⁶

This consideration has special force in view of the fact that Varāha believed that the constellation of the Saptarṣis ( Ursa Major) was in the Maghās at the time when Yudhiṣṭhira ruled, that that star group remains for one hundred years in each of the 27 nakṣatras and that therefore to complete one cycle through all nakṣatras the star group of Saptarṣis required 2700 years.⁵⁷

There are other serious difficulties also in holding that the Sanskrit scientific astronomical treatises were acquainted with or borrowed from Ptolemy’s work, Numerous discrepancies in essential matters exist between Ptolemy’s work and Hindu astronomical works such as the assignment of different dimensions to the epicycles of the planets by Ptolemy and by Hindu writers. Therefore, it is altogether improbable that the Hindu works were directly based on Ptolemy’s work. Nor is there any direct evidence to show that Hindu works were based on Hipparchus or the works of other Greek writers.

No proof of Greek influence

No such Greek works are now available nor are even Greek elementary manuals of astronomers available which can be said to agree with Hindu scientific works. That an extensive Sanskrit literature on astronomy has perished is clear from Varāhamihira’s works and Utpala’s quotations in his commentaries on the Bṛ. S. and Bṛhaj-jātaka. Modern Western writers would do well to observe at least for the present a non-committal attitude instead of repeating ad nauseum that Hindu scientific astronomy was derived from Greeks on slender similarities between the two systems and on obscure and ill understood passages and extracts in old astronomical works (vide E. Burgess in J. A. O. S. vol. VI at p. 480).

After having briefly indicated the astronomical knowledge to be gathered from Vedic works, it is now necessary to show that astrological knowledge is also found in the Vedic texts from the oldest times. The human mind is very curious to know the future and is very prone to regard certain days, times and appearances as auspicious or favourable and others as inauspicious. Various means were adopted by ancient peoples to pry into the future. The word astrology is now generally understood⁵⁸ to mean the predictions about what would befall an individual based on the configurations of the Sun, the moon and the planets at the time of his birth. But this was not the sense or at least the only sense in which the word was used in very ancient times. Astrology known to us from the ancient Assyrians was concerned almost wholly with the interpretation of celestial phenomena and planetary configurations and the predictions about the immediate future in relation to the country, its people, its government or king, in such matters as the crops, floods, storms, invasions or other calamities. The events in the heavens, in the sky and even on the earth were supposed to intimate the thoughts of the gods, and to convey indications about impending happenings. This may be called natural astrology. Horoscopic astrology is a later development. Predictions were also derived by skilled diviners from various other happenings such as dreams, the flight and cries of birds, and the interpretation of the mysterious signs on the livers ⁵⁹ of the sheep killed in sacrifices to gods in Babylon and Rome.

The first thing that we notice is that even in the Ṛgveda we have frequent references to ‘auspiciousness of days’ (sudinatve ahnām) in R̥g. III. 8.5, III. 23.4, VII. 88.4, X. 70.1, (‘sudinatvamahnām’ in R̥g. II. 21. 6 and ‘sudineṣvahnām’ in R̥g. IV. 37.1). A few of these may be translated here. ‘O Indra! establish amongst us abundance of wealth, freedom from injury to our bodies, sweetness of speech and luckiness of days’ (R̥g. II. 21.6); ‘(The sacrificial post) when planted on an auspicious day goes prospering in the sacrifice attended by many men’(R̥g. III. 8.5 );

Ṛgveda references to auspicious days

‘O Agni! I establish thee on the best place of the earth (the uttaravedi), the place of worship and for libation, securing luckiness of day; may you shine opulently on the (river) Dṛṣadvati, on the concourse of people, on the river Āpayā and on Sarasvati (R̥g. III, 23.4).⁶⁰

There are several other passages in which a wish is expressed that the days would be auspicious or lucky for sacrificers etc. Vide R̥g. IV. 4. 7, V. 60.5, VII. 11, 2, VII, 18. 21, 1. 124.2 (May new dawns like the past ones shine for us with wealth and lucky days ), X. 39.12.⁶¹

It has already been seen above (note ³¹ ) that in Ṛgvedic times cows were driven (by way of dowry) to the bridegroom’s house on Aghās (Maghās) and the bride was carried in a chariot to the bridegroom’s house after the marriage on the Arjuni (or Phalguni) nakṣatra. In accordance with this the nakṣatras on which marriage should be celebrated are enumerated in the Baud. gr. as Rohiṇī, Mṛgaśīrsa, Uttarā-Phalguni and Svāti.

It has already been shown above (on p. 506) how Agnyādheya (the setting up of the sacred fires) was to be performed on one of seven nakṣatras or in spring, summer and autumn according to the varṇā (class) of the performer (vide Kāṭhaka S. 8.1, Sat. Br. II. 1.2, Tai. Br. I. 1.2.6-7). But an exception was recognized in the case of one performing a Soma sacrifice. It was provided that whenever a man had a desire to perform a Soma sacrifice he might establish the sacred fires in any season and that would bring prosperity to him.⁶².

In ancient Vedic passages no clear line of demarcation appears between what may be called natural astrology and individual astrology. For example, in the Tai. Br.⁶³ it is provided that people plough their fields on Anurādhā nakṣatra, of which Mitra is the presiding deity. The Pāraksaragṛhya prescribes in the same strain that a man should put the ploughshare (in his field) on an auspicious day or on Jyeṣṭhā nakṣatra of which Indra is the presiding deity (and rains are in the hands of Indra). On the other hand, the same Brāhmaṇa ⁶⁴ (Taittiriya) provides that if a man desires that his daughter should be dear to her husband he should get her married when the moon is in Niṣṭyā (Svāti) nakṣatra and that if he does so his daughter becomes dear to her husband and never comes back to her father’s house. The nakṣatras from Kṛttikā to Viśākhā have been declared to be Devanakṣatras and whatever rites are performed on them are declared to have been performed on a holy day (punyāha). Even as early as the Atharvaveda ³⁶ it appears to have been believed that a boy born on Jyeṣṭhā or on Vicṛt (i.e. Mūla nakṣatra) or on a day called tiger-like (on an evil or terrible nakṣatra) might himself die or bring about the death of his father or mother. The two verses may be translated as follows: ‘(the boy) is born on Jyeṣṭhāghni (i.e. Jyeṣṭhā) or on Vicṛt which belongs to Yama; guard him against being uprooted; may (Agni) take him beyond all evil results in order that he may reach the long life of a hundred autumns. This valiant son was born on a tiger-like day and nakṣatra; may he not, while he grows, kill his father or his mother that gave him birth.’

Nakṣatras auspicious or evil

Thus it appears that some nakṣatras were called puṇya (auspicious or holy) as in Tai. Br. I. 5.2.1 or III. 1, 2.8, while some others (like Jyeṣṭhā, Mūla) were held to be pāpa (evil) nakṣatras.

From a passage in the ⁶⁵ Bṛ. Up. it appears that certain nakṣatras were called male “if a man desires ‘May I reach greatness’ he should observe milk diet for twelve days beginning in the northward passage of the Sun, in the bright half of a month and on a favourable day he offers into the fire on a male nakṣatra &c.”

From the above examples it will be apparent that prognostications were based in very early Vedic times on the nakṣatras either of birth or on nakṣatras deemed auspicious or inauspicious. Puṣya appears to have been regarded as a very auspicious nakṣatra long before Pāṇini, who mentions another name of it as ‘Sidhya’. But in these early times it does not appear that any rules had been arrived at about the influence of planets (except perhaps of Jupiter in Puṣya) in certain nakṣatras or about horoscopes with planets in nakṣatras or rāśis (signs of the zodiac) or in certain ‘houses’. In those days prognostications were confined mainly to nakṣatras, days and natural phenomena and bodily marks. For example, Pāṇini I. 4. 39 (‘राधीक्ष्योर्यस्य विप्रश्नः’) provides a rule for a diviner considering the good or bad luck of a person. The काशिका explains ‘विविधः प्रश्नः विप्रश्नः। स कस्य भवति यस्य शुभाशुभं पृच्छयत। देवदत्ताय राध्यति ईक्षते वा नैमित्तिकः पृष्टः सन् देवदत्तस्य दैवं पर्यालोचयति’. In पाणिनि IV. 3, 73 ‘अणृगयनादिभ्यः’ it is provided that the affix अण् (and not ठक्) is applied in the sense of ‘तत्र भवः’ or ‘तस्य व्याख्यानः ’ to the words in the ऋगयनगण, which contains among others the words अङ्गविद्या, उत्पात and निमित्त (i.e. नैमित्तिक and औत्पातिक would mean ‘one who expounds the future consequences indicated by उत्पात i.e. earthquake &c. and निमित्त throbbing &c.). Under पाणिनि III, 2.53 the काशिका gives the examples जायाघ्नस्तिलकालकः, पतिघ्नी पाणिरेखा (line on the palm ).

We find from certain verses of the Ṛgveda that the cries of such birds as kapiñjala were deemed even in those ancient timesto indicate coming events, auspicious or otherwise; ⁶⁶ ‘(the bird) crying again and again and voicing (indicating) coming event sends forth his speech as an oarsman propels a boat; O bird! may you be auspicious to us and may no unfavourable sign reach you from any quarter; O bird! may you that are auspicious and whose cry forebodes good cry to the south of (our) houses; may no thief master us nor may any one declare that we may meet danger.’ Br. S. 98. 14 provides that birds indicate to a person going on a journey the evil results of actions, good or evil, done by him in former lives. The Yoga-yātrā of Varāhamihira (chap. 14) and Adbhutasāgara pp. 569-582 deal at length with śakuna (prognostications from the sight, flight or cries of birds and other animals). Yogayātrā (14.2 and 26 ) provides that certain birds and animals when they are to the right or southern side of a man starting on a journey indicate auspicious results and that when a cāṣa bird with something in its mouth flies to the right side of a man that is an indication of welfare.

The result of the dependence on ideas of lucky and unlucky days and nakṣatras was that some people began to make observations and deduce conclusions and a lore called ’nakṣatra-vidyā’ arose. When Nārada approached the great teacher Sanatkumāra for knowledge, the latter questioned him as to what he already knew and then Nārada enumerated a long list of lores (including ⁶⁷ the four Vedas, Itihāsa-purāṇa), one of which is ’nakṣatravidyā’ (’the science of nakṣatras’ i.e. astronomy and astrology ). It can be easily imagined how credulous people in ancient times as even in these days consulted those who professed to know what the stars foretold and were often deceived or felt frustrated. Hence arose even in early times a prejudice against star-gazers, astrologers and the like.

One of the earliest references to this prejudice against stargazers in Sanskrit literature is found in the Tai. Bṛ. III, 4. 4 and Vāj. S. 30. 10 and 20, where the ⁶⁸ ’nakṣatradarśa’ (star-gazer) is made over as a victim to prajñāna and the ‘gaṇaka’( calculator of the movements of stars and planets) is consigned to aquatic animals along with the headman of the village. Among the long list of brāhmaṇas that should not be invited for religious rites in honour of gods or in śrāddhas, Manu (III, 162 ) includes one who maintains himself by the practice of astrology (nakṣatrairyaśca jīvati) and in (VI. 50 ) Manu prohibits ascetics from desiring to secure alms by foretelling the results of portents (like earth-quakes) or of bodily ⁶⁹ movements (such as the throbbing of the eye or arm ) or by nakṣatravidyā ( astrology ) or aṅgavidyā (palmistry) or by casuistry or by telling what the śāstra ordains on a (disputed) point. The ancient sūtras of Hārīta and of Saṅkhalikhita declare that a nakṣatrajivin (one who lives by practising astrology) and a ’nakṣatrādeśavṛtti’ (who makes his livelihood by conveying the message of nakṣatras ) respectively are unfit to sit in a row with other brāhmaṇas (q. by Kr̥tyakalpataru on śrāddha p. 88). Similarly, Sumantu (in a prose passage q. on śrāddha by Kr̥tyakalpataru p. 91 ) states the same about a ‘mūlyasāṁvatsarika’ (who practises astrology for money ). The Viṣṇudharma-sūtra (chap. 82.7) includes those who maintain themselves by astrology (nakṣatrajivinaḥ) among those who are not to be invited for śrāddha rites. Similarly, the Tevijjasutta ( S. B. E. vol. XI. pp. 196–197) and Mahāśila in Dighanikāya (I. p. 68 ) condemn for Buddhist monks maintenance by such low arts as guessing at the length of a man’s life or by foretelling future events (such as eclipses, falling meteors, victory and defeat &c.). But the mere study of constellations is allowed by Buddha (in S. B. E. vol. XX. pp. 292-294). Among obstacles to gain ⁷⁰ Kauṭilya enumerates many such matters as passion of love, anger, timidity and desire to find out an auspicious tithi and nakṣatra’ and winds up with two fine verses characteristic of the great genius that placed Candragupta Maurya on the throne of Magadha: “The desired object ( or wealth) eludes that childish man that is excessively in search of what the stars portend: for the desired object is ( itself) the star that governs ( success ) in securing it; what will stars do? Men striving ( to attain their ends ) will secure their objects after hundreds of efforts; wealth is caught by wealth just as elephants are bound by other elephants (opposed to them ).’ From the above it is quite clear that several centuries before Christ an astrologer ( who maintained himself on money acquired by the practice of astrology) was very much condemned.

What Kauṭilya regards as reprehensible is extreme reliance on and pursuit of nakṣatra astrology, but it is not to be supposed that he ignored prognostications altogether. About the king’s purohita (priest ) he lays down the following ⁷¹ ’the king should appoint as priest a person whose family and character are highly spoken of, who has well studied the Veda together with the six aṅgas, the divine and other portents and the science of the government of people and who can prevent divine and human calamities by means contained in the Atharvaveda, the king should follow him as a pupil does his teacher or a son his father or a servant his master’. Yāj. (I. 313), who is later than Kauṭilya by some centuries, also lays down in almost identical words that the king should appoint as purohita one who is proficient in astrology, endowed with all requirements declared in śāstras, and is proficient in the science of government and the propitiatory and magic rites of the Atharvaveda’.

Another set of texts indicates another stage in the development of astrology based on nakṣatras, which seems to have been somewhat on the lines of the later horoscopic system of ‘houses’. Traces of it exist though they are not very ancient. The Vaikhānasasmārta ⁷² sūtra (IV. 14) refers to nakṣatras called Janma, Karma, Sāṅghātika, Sāmudayika and Vaināśika and these terms are explained in the Yogayātrā of Varāha and in the Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa.⁷³

Nakṣatra Astrology

The Yogayatra remarks⁷⁴ - the nakṣatra on which a man is born is called ādya (first), the tenth from it (from ādya ) is called karma, the 16th nakṣatra from the ādya is called sāṅghātika (pertaining to a group or a collection of human beings), the 18th (from ādya) is called Samudāya (collection) and the 23rd (from ādya) is called Vaināśika (lit. pertaining to death or destruction), the 25th (from ādya) is called mānasa (pertaining to the mind); in this way all persons are concerned with six nakṣatras (1st, 10th, 16th, 18th, 23rd and 25th ); they say that the king is concerned with nine nakṣatras, the three additional ones being those connected with his jāti (caste), his country and with the nakṣatra on the day of his coronation. The Yogayātrā and Viṣṇudharmottara (I. 78. 14-16) further provide ‘when the nakṣatra of one’s birth is affected by evil (star or aspect) the results are the appearance of disease, loss of money, and disputes; if the nakṣatra called karma is affected then one’s undertakings do not succeed; if the Sāṅghātika (16th) is affected then there is treachery; when the Sāmudayika (18th) is affected there is loss of accumulated wealth; when the Vaināśika (23rd) is affected, one’s desired objects perish; when Mānasa (25th) is affected, there is anxiety and unhappiness. The Nārada purāṇa,⁷⁵ after defining the above, remarks that one should not commence any auspicious act on these. When the (six ) nakṣatras are not affected (by evil stars or aspects) a person is healthy, enjoys happiness, his body is well-nourished and he is endowed with wealth; but if the six nakṣatras are affected he perishes and the king also (meets the same fate) if the six along with the extra three are affected.

When ⁷⁶ the nakṣatra on which a king was crowned is affected by evil planets or aspects, one should predict loss of the kingdom, if the nakṣatra of the country is affected trouble to the country and capital is indicated and if the nakṣatra of the king’s caste is affected then one should predict king’s illness. The nakṣatras according to the caste of the king are as follows ⁷⁷ : the three Pūrvas (Phalguni, Purvāṣāḍha and Purvābhādrapadā) and Kṛttikā are nakṣatras of the king of the brāhmaṇa class; the three Uttarās (Uttarā Phalguni, Uttarāṣāḍha and Uttarābhādrapada) and Puṣya are nakṣatras for a king of the kṣatriya caste; Revati, Anurādhā, Māgha and Rohiṇī, of agricultural class; Punarvasu, Hasta, Abhijit and Aśvinī are nakṣatras of the vaṇik (trader) class. The countries governed by the nakṣatras are set out in chap. 14 of the Bṛhat-saṁhitā. Herein Varāha differs from Ptolemy in two respects:(1) Varāha does not mention countries governed by rāśis, but countries governed by nakṣatras; (2) Varāha confines himself to India, while Ptolemy in his Tetrabiblos ( 11. 3 pp. 157-159, Loeb Classical Library) deals with all countries then known. This is an important circumstance against the theory that Varāha’s astrology is borrowed from Ptolemy or later Greek writers. If he had known Ptolemy’s work he could have easily followed him even as to countries outside India. The whole of India is divided into nine parts, the Madhyadeśa and the regions in the eight quarters from the East to the North-east, each part being under groups of three nakṣatras from Kṛttikā onwards. Vide also Viṣṇudharmottara I. 86. 1-9. When the group of three nakṣatras in each of nine divisions is affected by the Sun, Mars or Saturn, the countries falling under any of the three nakṣatras of the group suffer calamities. The MārkaṇḍeyaPurāṇa (chap. 58. 10-54 in B. I. edition, chap. 55 in Venkateśvara Press edition) also specifies the countries in the nine groups, but the names differ to some extent. There is some divergence about the nomenclature also.

Astrology based on nakṣatras

According to Parāśara and the Viṣṇudharmottara (1. 87, 7) the 4th nakṣatra from the nakṣatra of birth is called Mānasa. A nakṣatra ⁷⁸ is said to be affected (upahata) when the Sun or Saturn occupies it or when Mars is retrograde in it or occults it or an eclipse ( of the Sun or Moon) occurs in it or a meteor strikes it or when the moon continuously affects it (by occulting or occupying its middle or goes to the southern part of it). The Viṣṇudharmottara (I. 89. 1-13), Yogayātrā IX. 13-18, and Parāśara (quoted by the Adbhutasāgara pp. 271–274) prescribe certain śānti rites for averting the evil effects of the above noted nine nakṣatras being affected. ⁷⁹

It should be noted that in the astrology depending on twelve rāśis and twelve bhāvas ( places or houses ) karma is the name given to the 10th house from the first (just as in the case of nakṣatra astrology ) and mṛtyu ( i.e. vināśa) is the name of the 8th bhāva.

The Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa contain numerous passages where the planets in relation to certain nakṣatras are stated to indicate misfortunes to people in general, to warring armies and to individuals. A few examples may be cited by way of illustration. When in the sanguinary battle between Rāvaṇa and Rāma, the former seemed to be getting the better of Rāma, the Rāmāyaṇa states ⁸⁰ Mercury stood covering the Rohiṇī nakṣatra which is presided over by Prajāpati and which is the favourite of the moon and thereby indicated evil fortune to people’. Similarly, it is said ‘Mars stood covering the nakṣatra Viśākhā in the sky, which is presided over by Indra and Agni and which is the nakṣatra of the Kosalas’. In the Mahābhārata numerous statements are made about the position of the planets, the nakṣatras and tithis, which it is almost impossible to reconcile. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III, pp. 903-923 for consideration of the astronomical data in the Mahābhārata.

Here we are concerned only with the beliefs about certain omens and portents. In the Bhiṣma-parva we read ⁸¹ ‘a white celestial body stands traversing Citrā nakṣatra; one sees therein specially the destruction of the Kurus; a very frightful comet stands covering Puṣya-nakṣatra; this great graha will bring about terrible evil to both armies. A white blazing graha resembling fire emitting smoke stands covering the bright Jyeṣṭhā-nakṣatra whose presiding deity is Indra; a cruel comet standing between Citrā and Svāti afflicts Rohiṇī and the Sun and the Moon’.

There are several statements about Mars that are more or less irreconcilable⁸². For example, the Udyogaparva says ‘Mars having been retrograde in Jyeṣṭhā seeks (to reach or afflict?) Anurādhā presided over by Mitra, as if bringing death’; while Bhiṣma-parva remarks ‘Mars is retrogade in Maghā and Jupiter is in Śravaṇa and Saturn afflicts the nakṣatra presided over by Bhaga (i.e. Purvā Phalguni). About Saturn several⁸³ statements are made a refulgent and malignant planet, Saturn, afflicts the nakṣatra (ruled over by Prajāpati i.e. Rohiṇī) and will afflict people more’; ‘Saturn stands afflicting Rohiṇī’; Jupiter and Saturn are near Viśākhā’.

One very remarkable feature of the Mahābhārata passages is that while they put forward dozens of times the positions of the Sun, the Moon and planets in reference to nakṣatras, not a single passage gives the position of the planets in relation to rāśis, the signs of the Zodiac, or week-days (such as Tuesday, Sunday &c.).

Astrology of Ātharvaṇa-jyotiṣa

The Ātharvaṇa jyotiṣa furnishes a somewhat different scheme of nakṣatra astrology. It says:⁸⁴ the 10th nakṣatra from the nakṣatra of a man’s birth is called karma, the 19th (from janma-nakṣatra) is called garbhādhānaka (nakṣatra of conception), the 2nd, 11th and 20th constitute the group called sampatkara( bringing about prosperity), the 3rd, 12th and 21st (from janmanakṣatra) constitute the group of vipatkara (bringing about ill-luck or distress), the 4th, 13th and 22nd are called kṣemya (causing prosperity), the 5th, 14th and 23rd are called ‘pratvara (pratyari?)’, 6th, 15th and 24th constitute (the group called) sādhaka ( that accomplish), the 7th, 16th and 25th are called naidhana (relating to death), the 8th, 17th and 26th are maitra (friendly ), the 9th, 18th and 27th constitute a highly friendly group. These are nine groups (each made up of three nakṣatras from among 27 nakṣatras and each one in each group being separated by the number 9 from the next in the same group). These names make a further approach to the scheme of twelve bhāvas ⁸⁵ viz. janma (which corresponds in name and import to tanu or lagna), sampat (corresponds to the 2nd bhāva called dhana), karma(is same as 10th bhāva), naidhana (corresponds to 8th bhāva called vināśa or mṛtyu), maitra (corresponds to the 4th bhāva called suhṛt), kṣemya (corresponds to the name of the 11th bhāva called āya or lābha). The Ātharvaṇa-jyotiṣa then provides at some length what should be done or not done on these nine groups and their constituents. The above mentioned words (vipatkara, kṣemya &c.) occur also in Bṛhad-yogayātrā (folio 5 b, IV, 17), in Viṣṇudharmottara II. 166 at end and in the Tantrika work Śāradātilaka ⁸⁶.

It should be noted that the Ātharvaṇa-jyotiṣa gives at least five names that are the same as the corresponding bhāvas in extant Jātaka works. It is difficult to state the date when the extant Ātharvaṇa jyotiṣa might have been composed. It mentions week-days but does not enumerate the twelve zodiacal signs, it refers to the doctrine of Bhṛgu (9.1.). Verses 1-4 of Ātharvana jyotiṣa (chapter 13 ) are the same as Manu III. 46-49; similarly, Ātharvaṇa jyotiṣa 12. 8-9 are almost the same as Manu IV. 41-42. It is quite possible that the present text is a recast of an older work. In any case the present text of the Ātharvaṇa jyotiṣa cannot be placed earlier than the 2nd or 1st century B.C, and may be a little later still. But it appears that the present Ātharvaṇa jyotiṣa only collects together the ideas then current and therefore the five names (janma, sampat, naidhana, mitra and karma) could very well have been current centuries before the present Ātharvaṇa Jyotiṣa text. Similarly, it is difficult to assign an exact date to the Viṣṇu-dharmottarapurāṇa. It is in the nature of an encyclopaedia of the then knowledge of several lores and its present text may be assigned to some period between the 4th and sixth century A. D.

Nakṣatra Astrology in sūtra works

From the passage of the Bṛhadāraṇyka Upaniṣad (in note ⁶⁵) it would be seen how auspicious times were prescribed for rites to be performed by an individual. The Brāhmaṇas and Kalpasūtras prescribed the auspicious nakṣatras and seasons for solemn Vedic sacrifices. The gṛhya and dharma sūtras prescribed for domestic rites auspicious times, which were either the same or similar to those prescribed in the Brāhmaṇas, Br. Up. and the Kalpasūtras. A few examples may be cited here. The Āśvalāyana (I. 13.1), Āpastamba (VI. 14.9), Baudhāyana (I. 10. 1) and Pāraskara (I. 14) and other gṛhyasūtras provide that the rite of Puṁsavana (that would produce male issue) was to be performed in the third month after conception on Tiṣya (Puṣya) nakṣatra or on a day on which the moon would be in a male nakṣatra.⁸⁷ The Bhāradvājagr̥hya expressly mentions Tiṣya, Hasta, Anurādhā, Uttarā Bhādrapadā as the proper nakṣatras for puṁsavana. As regards caula (tonsure ) Āpastamba-gr̥hya (VI. 16.3) prescribes that it should be performed in the third year after birth on Punarvasu nakṣatra. The name of the nakṣatra may be noted, which literally means ‘fresh wealth or new growth.’ The Kauśika-sūtra mentions’ pāpanakṣatra’ (in 46.25) and puṁnakṣatra (lucky nakṣatra) in 35. 2. There are varying provisions about marriage. The Āp. gr. says that all seasons are proper for marriage, excepting the two months of Śiśira (viz, Māgha and Phālguna) and excepting the last month (Āṣāḍha) of summer, and all nakṣatras declared to be auspicious.⁸⁸ The sutra also quotes an ancient gāthā stating that persons for choosing a girl should be sent out on Invakās (i e. Mṛgaśīrṣa) and then they are greeted with success. As regards marriage the Gobhila-gr̥hya provides a simple rule that it should be performed on an auspicious ( puṇya ) nakṣatra, while the Pāraskara ⁸⁹ is more elaborate viz. one should take a maiden’s hand in marriage in the northward passage of the sun, in the fortnight of the increasing moon, on an auspicious day and on Uttarā Phalguni, Hasta, Citrā, Uttarāṣādhā, Śravaṇa, Dhaniṣṭhā, Uttara-bhādrapadā, Revati, Aśvinī, Svāti, Mṛgaśiras and Rohiṇī nakṣatras. The Baudhāyana-gr̥hya ⁹⁰ declares: all months are proper for marriage; some (sages ) say that the months of Aṣāḍha, Māgha and Phālguna are to be avoided; the nakṣatras for marriage are Rohiṇī, Mr̥gaśirsa, UttarāPhalguni and Svāti; while for other auspicious rites the nakṣatras are Punarvasu, Tiṣya, Hasta, Śroṇā (Śravaṇa) and Revati.

The Āśvalāyana-gr̥hya generalises the auspicious times for several important saṁskāras as follows:⁹¹ ’the rites for caula, upanayana, godāna and marriage are to be performed in the northward passage of the sun, in the fortnight of the waxing moon and on an auspicious nakṣatra; some (sages) hold that marriage may be performed at all times’. Āśv. further provides that the maiden after marriage was to observe silence and to begin speaking after seeing the Polestar, Arundhati and the constellation of the Seven Sages. This generalisation is carried further by the Pūrvamımāṁsā-sūtra which provides ⁹² ‘all ritas in honour of the gods are to be performed in the northward passage of the sun, on a day in the bright half of the month and on an auspicious day’.

It will be seen clearly from the above discussion that an auspicious nakṣatra was the sine qua non in almost all Vedic rites and also in ordinary domestic rites in the times of the Brāhmaṇas and sūtras (several centuries before the Christian era), the tithi was rarely mentioned, the week-day was not mentioned nor the name of any rāśi ( zodiacal sign) nor is there any reference to the planets Jupiter and Venus in most sūtras even when prescribing proper times for upanayana or marriage.

This requirement of finding out an auspicious day or nakṣatra for the celebration of a marriage or other domestic rite or for engaging in any undertaking was said in medieval Sanskrit works to be a search for an auspicious muhūrta. It is therefore necessary to hold a discussion on the meaning and history of the word muhūrta.