Page 57 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

SAMAGRA TILAK - 2 8 THE ORION
tion, but it may be easily shown to be inconsistent with the position
of the winter solstice in the day of the Taittirtya· Saqthiti.
I have already stated that from the passage of the Taittit!ya
Saqthita just quoted we may fairly infer that the. winter solstice
occurred in those days on the full moon in Magha. According
to the Vedanga JyotiiJha it fell a fortnight earlier, that is, on the
first day of the bright half of Magha. It is roughly estimated that
the equinox must recede about two divisional NakiJhatras, i. e.
26° 4Cl, to make the· seasons fall back by one month. Between the
times of the Taittirtya Sa:rphita and the Vedanga JyotiiJha the
equinox must accordingly recede 13° 20' or nearly 14°. Now the
position of the equinox as given in Vedanga Jyotitha is 10° of
Bharant. From this to the beginning of the divisional Ktittikas, J
the distance is only 3 ° 20' while if we measure it from the aster ism of
K~ittika it is 3° 20'+10o SC' = 14° lC'. Therefore during the period
that lapsed between the Taittirtya Sa~p.hita and the V edanga
Jyotivha the equinox, according to Bentley, receded only 3° 20';
while if we understand the Kptitikas to denote the asterism of
that name, it gives us a precession of 14° 1C'. No was the winter
solstice fell a fortnight later in the days of the Sa:rphita we must
accept the latter precession of 10°, which alone corresponds with
that interval of time ( i. e. a fortnight) and as~ume that the vernal
equinox then coincided with the asterism of Krittika, a conclusion
the probability of which has already been established on other
grounds. Bentley's speculation must therefore, be rejected, unless
we are prepared to allow his guess about the primary meaning of
Vishakha to prevail against reasonable conclusions based upon a
passage from the Taittirtya Sa:rphita.
But even admitting Bentley's speculation about the meaning
. of Visbakba, we may fairly question the soundness of the conclusion
drawn· therefrom. For what ground is there for holding that the
two divisions of Visbakha must be mathematically equal in .every
respect ? The word dala in vida/a may be so understood; but
dala and shakha are not similar in this respect. Bentley's error,
therefore, consists not in supposing that the colure may have cut
the divisional VishAkhis, but in inferring therefrom · that it must
have bisected it. The !whole ecliptic was divided into 27 NakiJhatras,
and l3i could only be comprised, in each hemisphere. Vishakha,, the
14th Nakthatra from the Kpttikas may have been thus conside~.