Page 78 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

65

shown that the winter solstice could-not have occurred on the full-
moon in Margashirtha, and by the same method we can prove the
improbability of the vernal equinox falling on that day. For if
we suppose the Margashirtha full-moon to be the new year's night,
in the sense that the vernal equinox occurred on that date, we
must make the asterism of Abhijit coincide with the vernal equi-
nox. This gives us about 20,000 years B. C. for the period when
these positions could have been true. The author of the Bhagavata
Pura:Qa appears to have had some such theory in his mind when
he paraphrased ( xi. 16. 27 ) the above-quoted verse in Gita by
• I am Margashir!tha of the months, Abhijit of the Nak!Jhatras, '
and the late Kri,h:Qa Shastri Go~bole took this statement for a
record of a real tradition ! This illustrates the danger of relying
on traditions in later books without tracing them to their source
in the oldest works we possess.
We must therefore rise above these etymological speculations
.
of the native 'Scholars of what Prof. Max Muller once called the
,
Renaissance ~riod of the Sanskrit literature. It is these specula-
tions that have given us the libration theory and interrupted the
tradition of AgrahdyatJa coming down to us intact. lt is difficult
to say how these etymological speculations originated. Perhaps
the word " Agrahayanika was in course of time corrupted by non-
" .
user into AgraluJ.yti1}a on the analogy of Chaitra and Chaitrika,
and such corruption gave rise to these speculations, or it might
be that the year locally commenced with Margashir~ha in certain
provinces, and attempts were made to find an authority for such
custom in the etymological meaning of the word Agruha~Jika.

their year. Then, according to Bentley's calculation, .\sh\·ina was the
first month in 1192 B.<;. and KArtik in 9-l5 B. C. But there is no e\·i-
dence whatsoever in the Sanskrit literature to corroborate these results.
Again why should either of these months not ha\·e hcen called .1~. ,,,.
h{Jyf!ik,, ·' llentl ey sopposes that thts method wa;;; in force ttl! 53 .\.D.:
if so, why should Pau,ha no t become .lg,,,lt;;y,,'f}ll•• instead of ~l:'trga­
sh irtha, in 4 51 B. C. ? Bt: ntley's 111Ntpfwlrd pccu)atwn must, th e rei ore,
be rejected as imaginary. h gi\'es no rea on why ~illrgashirfha , the third
of the several months which acconling ttl this theory, would suc~~s­
sively begin the year from 1193 B. C. to 53S A. U., should alone ha\ e
been called . IJrr<Jh:U·,,~,u,, ~on traf)· to the usual rule accurdin:.: to wh1ch
the word should cle n ot~ th t' full-moo n da1.
o. 5 .