Epigraphia Indica Vol 13

Author(s): Sten Konow, F W Thomas
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 87

66
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XIII.
not giving its name to any year. To find the beginning-moment of the No. 1 Prabhava of the next cycle we add as before E-(Fx 34) to the ending-moment of 26 Nandana as found above.
E=-365-258437500 days (Fx34)=-144-106621496 do.
221-151816004 do. +6:498360000 do.
227-650176004 do.
Therefore 1 Prabhava began 227-650176004 days after mean Mesha samkranti in the year K. Y. 33, B.C. 3069-68.
Add this to "I" x 52, and deduct a multiple of the solar year length. or Ex 16, and we have the datum for K. Y. 3117, A.D. 16-17.
"I" x 52.
5769-537012720 +227-650176004
5997-187188724 Ex 16.5844-135000000
153-052188724
This last is the number of days by which 1 Prabhava began in that year after mean Mesha samkrānti.
From that moment we proceed regularly as before, adding the cycle difference "I" for each cycle.
CALCULATION BY THE SECOND ARYA SIDDHANTA ON BASIS OF (i) APPARENT, (ii) MEAN MESHA SAMKRANTI.
218. In my Indian Chronography (n. 2, p. 63) I intimated my intention to publish Tables for finding the time of beginning and ending of a Jovian samvatsara according to the Second (or Laghu) Arya Siddhanta in the same way as those published (Tables XXVII to XXXI A) according to the other Hindu authorities; and I now fulfil my promise.
219. The date of the Second Arya Siddhanta is believed to be about A.D. 950; and according to the opinion of the late Mr. Sankara Balkrishna Dikshit, it does not seem to have been anywhere in use for a long time. It was, however, known to Bhaskaracharya in A.D. 1150, and such being the case I have considered it advisable to prepare the Tables for the whole period covered by the other tables referred to. Though this is certainly useless for later years it is dangerous to draw a line and it is best to be on the safe side, as we know as yet neither the tract where this Siddhanta was used nor the date when its use ceased. As regards the samvatsaras of Jupiter this Siddhanta could never have been received as an authority in the South of India because there the astronomically calculated succession of samvatsaras, in the matter of the application of their names to the solar years, was neglected after the year A.D. 906; every year being afterwards serially connected with the name of a samvatsara without regard to any suppression. The presumption is that the use of the Second Arya Siddhanta was confined to the north, or at least to those tracts where suppressions of samvatsaras were attended to.