Page 58 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

,..
THB ElllTJ'IUS 45
by simply counting the number of the Nakthatras, as lying partly
in the region of the Devas and partly in that of the Pit#s. • For
though we might -hold that the Vedic observers were not provided
with means to fix imaginary points in the heavens and to refer
to these points the motions of the heavenly bodies as astronomers
do at present, yet it does not imply that they were Unaware of
the approximate distances between the various asterisms selected
by them. In other words, they might be supposed to have roughly
known the distances between the stars, though for obvious reasons
~hey could not but refer the motions of the heavenly bodies only
to the fixed stars. Thus understood, Bentley's conjecture about the
J>rlmary meaning of Visbakha does not necessarily imply that the
equinoctial colure bisected the divisional Vishakhas in those days;
and when the conjecture itself does not thus support his theory
.about the position of the colure, I do not think we shall be
justified in accepting it especially when it is shown that it is also
.objectionable on other grounds. I am, therefore, disposed to fix
lP.e date of the Taittirtya Satp.hita at 2350 B. C., and not 1426 B. C.
as Bentley has done.

So far, we have been going over the ground more or less
~raversed before by several scholars. But it may be asked if we
}lave here reached the Ultima Thule of the Vedic antiquity. Does
the oldest hymn, the first utterance of the Aryan mind, reach back
thus far and no further 1 Was it such a hymn that the Brahma-

• This is enough to satisfy a merely etymological speculation
unsupported by any other evidence whatsoever. Speaking more
accuratly if the vernal equinox coincided with the asterism of the
Krittik!s, the equinoctial colure falls out of the divisional VisblkhAs
by 40, but it is' nearly 60 behind the asterism of Anurldhl. Of the'se
two asterisms VishlkhA would therefore be nearer to the colure. But
we m1ght as well as ·: what ground there is for holding that the
Nak~batra divistmLS of the Zodiac , at the time when the vernal equinox
was in the Krittikls ( supposing such divisions to have then existed ),
were the same as those which we now use and which commence with
Revatt. Bentley appears to hav~ altogether overlooked this objection.
I have already stated stated my 'view regarding the divisional Nak,hatras
in old times, and I would reject Bentley's etymological speculation on
the mere ground that it requires us to assume the existence of such
.divisional Nak hatras and their bisection by colures.