________________
314
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
appears to be a little different from that of all the other authorities; though the general features are the same. And, for this reason, though the work is one of the earliest, I have quoted it last. The rule is given in the verse -Vaisakh-âdishu krishnê cha yogal pañchadasê tithan Kârttik-âdîni varshani Gurôr astôdayât tatha II," and the years Kârttika and others (that follow) (are to be named) from the rising, after setting, of Jupiter," according to the occurrence (of Krittiká and other nakshatras) on the fifteenth tithi in the dark fortnight of Vaisakha and other (months that follow)." The application of this rule seems to be thus:-The years are to be named, according as Krittika and other nakshatras,-evidently those in which the sun and the moon stand, -occur on the amávásya of Vaisakha and others immediately preceding or following' the day on which Jupiter rises; that is, on whatever day Jupiter may rise, the nakshatra on either the preceding or the following amávásya, gives the name to the samvatsara. This rule seems to have been alluded to, though not in the name of the Surya-Siddhanta, by Utpala; but it is rejected by him. It may possibly have been occasionally in use; but it certainly does not apply to the Gupta records.
Now, all these quotations distinctly refer, in some form or another, to the rising of Jupiter; which it is impossible to understand as meaning anything but his heliacal rising. And, if the rising referred to is the heliacal rising, then no astronomer can deny that, in the period of about twelve solar years, there are only eleven conjunctions of Jupiter and the sun, and consequently eleven heliacal risings of
With reference to some remarks in the first part of my paper (page 1 above, note 1), I should state that Ranganatha, one of the best commentators on the Súryn. Siddhanta, explains this verse with the understanding, into which he seems to have been led by Utpala's com ments on the Brihat-Samhita, vii. 1, that ast-ódnyat means "from the setting or rising." He adds, however, idinim udaya-varsha-ryavahár ganakair gan wat at the present time, the practice of (naming) the year by the rising, is taken into account by astrono mers." For the sake of consistency, it is justifiable to translate the expression ast-údayit as I have translated it above; and the use of the compounded base in the singular, supports that translation. And, since writing the first part of my paper, I have found that Dâdâbhâi, in his commentary on the Surya-Siddhinta, explains it in the same way his words being-tthastid layo kil Guris tal-yukta-nakshatra-samjn Guror abdó nya," so the year of Jupiter is to be known as having the appellation of that nakshatra with which he is joined at the time of (his) rising after setting.". There can be no doubt that ast-dayat is used here in the sense of from the rising after setting;" compare
[NOVEMBER, 1888
the planet. And, this fact being established, the interval of about four hundred days between two successive risings,-the same period, for the duration of each samvatsara, -the omission of one sashvatsara in each cycle of twelve years, and all the other points described by me,-follow of necessity.
It will, doubtless, have been noticed that I have not been able to give any quotations from the first Aryabhata (born A.D. 476) or Brahmagupta (born A.D. 598), in support of the heliacal-rising system. And it might be sought to base some argument against its existence, on the grounds that these two early authorities, who moreover may be said to be the originators of two of the three schools of astronomers in India, are silent about it, though they do give the mean-sign system. But the facts only prove the early existence and use of the meansign system; which I do not seek to deny. They do not prove either that the heliacalrising system did not exist; or that, having existed, it had gone out of use in their time. To take another instance, the first Aryabhata and Brahmagupta give no rule for finding the samvatsaras of the Sixty-Year Cycle; but, to say that this cycle was not known to either of them, would hardly be sensible. The mean-sign system for the Twelve-Year Cycle is undoubt. edly early. But the heliacal-rising system is earlier still. Among the authorities quoted above, the Surya-Siddhanta' is as early a work as the Aryabhatiya, if not earlier. And that Parisara, Garga, and Kasyapa, are earlier than Aryabhata cannot be denied. Utpala quotes a verse of Garga, which, with some proposed emendations, I give as it stands in my manu
such compounds as supt-ôtthita, having arisen from sleep; lit. 'having slept and then having risen.'J. F. F.]
These words, in connection with yigaḥ, have to be supplied from the preceding verse, in which the result exhibited in Table I., page 3 above, is given.
Which of the two, cannot be determined from the context; and I can find no commentator who has explained the point properly. I myself think that the following amávány is intended. But it seems that Utpala, in his allusion to this rule, takes the preceding amáványa.
In his note on the Surya-Siddhanta, xiv. 17 (see the Rev. E. Burgess' Translation, p. 271), Prof. Whitney says that Jupiter "would set and rise heliacally twelve times in each revolution, and each time about a month later than before." But this is evidently a mistake.
To say that the Surya-Siddhanta is a work of Varahamihira is simply a mistake. I cannot enter into this point at present; but would refer any who hold that view, to Varâhamihira's Pañcha-Siddhantika, and to Kern's Preface to his edition of the Brihat-Samhita.
