Page 176 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

CONCi_UdU!>I 161

justified in disregarding these results. 111piy b-:;cause they do
not support certain literary hypoth::>t> gti :sscs, or conjuctures
as for instance thoso:: that h;:vr. been r !' . ; •• _, referred to in the
first chapter. The rc:;•Jit;; uf the litciary' •:·;'_ :: may he moderate.
But moderation i" . . irtue oni_y ';..'he•t \',' hav10 to make guesses
about the periods of antiquity from 1v · r1;,, cl~t::L Where how-
ever, we have definite te~t~ .md lradi1il ,, _,. ·1pon nothing
but prejudice can detc• u: from drawi., ., conclusions
from them on the [!! < • ·d that they t> •. ' back The
astronomical methud, ! ,,Jmit, is vag· :]'; it does not
enable us to determine the exact dntr cf ,- ,, · ctie hymns or
works, but it is certainly ~nperior to 1it•gpistic :•' ;Lod inasmuch
as it supplies us with certaindc:-ini:,- ·•p 1 • ,}: .p.:tcJ facts, for
instance, the posit,ion of the CI.J.UiHmc , • Jh.· · an safely be
made the nuclei of the difl'erent periods of antiqn,ty. When the
centres of each period are thus indisputably fixed and determined
we can then use the literary or linguistic method to !iUpplement
these results by determining the duration of each period, There
would then be no real opposition between the two rnethods. The
one would determine the specific points of time, \\ lllle the other
would give us the .range of the different perimb. . · • o lher words,
the first would supply the piers and the seco!ld the arches of
bridge, w,hich we mean to construct across the P·~~;. ,J of antiquity
and which must therefore be completed with the assistance of
both. · .
It may, however, be urged that if the b~·~iuning of the year
was twice altered owing to the precession of the equinoxes, how
is it that we do not find the traces of the intermediate stages or of
the changes in the seasons in the old Vedic works ? How, it may
be further .asked, did the In<;! ian Aryas n~t discover the precession
of the equinoxes in the early Vedic times ? But it is not at all
difficult to answer these questions. We might' as well as ask how
no one before Bhaskanlcharya or Newton ever thought of the
attraction of the earth, though since the very beginning of the
human race every one observed heavy objects falling down to
the surface of the earth. The reason is plain enough. Celestial,
and natural phenomena cannot be fathomed or understood
without a _steady and close observation for centuries, and, above
all, until all the auxiliary, or rather the whole group of sciences
are proportionally developed. If we bear this circumstance in
0. 11